Filed under: Internet Tools, App Store, SDK
Opera: Apple won't let us in the App Store
Opera Software CEO Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner said in a New York Times interview yesterday that its engineers have developed a version of the Opera web browser that works on the iPhone, but Apple has rejected it for the App Store because it competes with Safari.
This isn't unprecedented: Apple rejected an app called Podcaster possibly because it duplicates functionality in an upcoming version of the iPhone software. Podcaster was (for a time) available via ad-hoc distribution before that, too, was shut down.
Daring Fireball's John Gruber suggests that Apple rejected Opera because the browser included its own JavaScript interpreter, something forbidden by the iPhone SDK developer agreement.
Opera makes two flavors of its mobile web browser: Opera Mini for most mobile phones, BlackBerry, Palm, or Windows Mobile; and Opera Mobile, a more featured version for Symbian and Windows Mobile. A beta version of Opera Mini for Android is also in development.
Update: Gruber used his massive Rolodex over the weekend to determine through an unnamed source that the app may not have even been submitted to the App Store. Huh.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
TJ said 12:08PM on 10-31-2008
I smell an antitrust lawsuit
Reply
Aron T said 1:02PM on 10-31-2008
What is interesting is that when Apple gets sued over iPod/iTunes it is usually just the device being locked to the store. However, this event specifically shows Apple is preventing competition on both the hardware and the software. It would be as if Apple refused to sell any movies or TV shows other than what was produced by Disney/ABC. I could see an anti-trust suit actually having some legs here because of this.
Vega said 1:15PM on 10-31-2008
Only if the iPhone market is regarded a seperate market. Which it isn't. If you don't like what's offered in the iPhone ecosyste, you can always choose one of the dozens of other Smartphone platforms. So it's not monopolistic behaviour.
Otherwis you could also sue Sony for strictly controlling developer access to their Playstation platform. Which you can't, because consumers can also choose Nintendo or the XBOX.
Migal said 3:45PM on 10-31-2008
okay - Apple does what Apple does and their products work unlike Microsoft. Do we really want Apply to mimic anything Microsoft does? I don;t - because I don;t want Microsoft-like crap.
As soon as you own a company like Apple you can make the decision to mimic Microsoft and good luck to you.
Also - the man "suggests" his browser was rejected because of an element of it going against the SDK. Tell me he wasn't surprised - this is pretty black and white explanation - or is that Microsoft intelligence at work? Sounds like it!
Cowicide said 7:39AM on 11-01-2008
I smell it too. who would dare smell liek u do. Yø, Steve... Step UP.
Bryan said 10:24PM on 11-01-2008
As much as I would love to see some different browsers in the App Store, particularly ones that don't crash all the time like Safari does (I began writing this on my iPhone but Safari crashed), I can see why Apple is wary of letting other JavaScript interpreters onto the iPhone. JavaScript has been the source of most security vulnerabilities for web browsers in the past few years and letting others onto the iPhone would be a pretty big liability for them.
Cowicide said 12:10PM on 10-31-2008
Apple better back off this inane, anti-competitive, microsoft-style tactic and back off quick before the Govt. forces them to do so.
Apple keeps this crap up & they are going to get what they deserve.
Reply
Eric said 12:20PM on 10-31-2008
I agree. This is a very bad path to go down. I understand rejecting apps that could be harmful to the system and cause problems, but rejecting them for being competitive is truly bad form.
igepard said 2:07PM on 10-31-2008
@cowicide
Quote:
"Apple better back off this inane, anti-competitive, microsoft-style tactic and back off quick before the Govt. forces them to do so. Apple keeps this crap up & they are going to get what they deserve."
Are you nuts? You sound sound really crazy, like a communist. Where do you live? This is a country of laws and freedoms.
First, if you don't like Apple don't buy it. There are million of choices. There is nothing anti-competitive here.
Second, what Apple is trying to do is to give a user reliable, secure, easy to use platform with a high level of user experience. Just like the Macintosh computer and maybe even better.
It is the Apple's interest to make it the best phone on the market. Having another browser (or E-mail or media player or whatever) will not give you better experience but headaches. Apple knows that. That's why iPhone has a great success.
James said 4:06PM on 11-01-2008
Who gives a crap!
shostakov said 3:26PM on 10-31-2008
Given that Safari crashes on the iPhone more than IE7 on a 7 year-old PC, I'd welcome any other attempts at a browser. I don't understand why Apple has to be so cocky about such things. They won't lose any revenue by users switching to Opera for iPhone. What, are they afraid their Mac and/or PC browser market share will suffer as a result? If so, here's a novel idea--make it better.
Personally, I'd love to see Firefox for iPhone.
WG said 12:22PM on 10-31-2008
How is this different from Microsoft not allowing rival browsers on Windows?
Reply
Aron T said 1:03PM on 10-31-2008
Microsoft did allow other browsers. Their trouble was in how tightly integrated IE was into the operating system and how difficult it was to fully remove it.
LD said 1:07PM on 10-31-2008
Because there is significant competition in the mobile phone space. This isn't even close to the same thing and everyone here suggesting it is is just ignorant.
Would people rather have iPhone 1.0 that didn't allow ANY apps on there? No one was screaming about anti-trust nonsense then. There are plenty of mobile phones that don't allow any software to be installed, is that an anti-trust violation? There are plenty of mp3 players that don't allow any other software to be installed. Is that an anti-trust violation?
When/if Apple gets 90%+ of the mobile phone market then we can start discussing anti-trust issues. Until then, you can always get an Android, Blackberry, Symbian, or Windows Mobile phone, right?
Julian said 12:22PM on 10-31-2008
The sdk agreement clearly states that apple will not allow web browsers in the store, I don't know why they even tried. Podcaster is a completely different thing, as no known rules where being broken (disclaimer: I think podcaster is awful and dowloading podcasts from iTunes is like a dream come true), with Opera, a rule that is clearly there is being broken.
Reply
Cowicide said 12:25PM on 10-31-2008
Julian, there is a higher "rule"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
Øivind said 4:20PM on 10-31-2008
They won't allow full featured web browsers, but they do allow specialised web browsers like Cooliris. Doesn't really make that much sense ...
Miguel said 12:22PM on 10-31-2008
I agree with the comments above. They are treading in dangerous Microsoft IE strategies.
Reply
Ben K. said 12:24PM on 10-31-2008
We'll see how this pans out. I'd like to see Opera for the iPhone in any form (App Store or via Cydia), but Apple not allowing Opera is pretty stupid (and thus, forbidding that type of stuff in the SDK is ridiculous, too).
Reply
Hunter said 2:31PM on 10-31-2008
Agreed, the competition is important and helps progress the platform, a little competition will only help safari on the iphone to be better. I too would like to at least be able to try out Opera even if its just through Cydia. *Fingers Crossed* I hope Opera is that bold.