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.
Share
Categories
Opera Software CEO Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner said in a New York Times interview yesterday that its engineers have developed a version of...
Add a Comment
Safari on the iPhone it's superior. I had Opera on the HTC Diamond, Touch Cruise and it's a lousy app. I admire Apple in not letting repeated apps to be on the iStore, they've have the right to do that in order to protect we the users. If you the users like me complaint about the many times I download an app from the iStore and found it's a lousy app, incomplete and specially when I have bought the app, then the app developers will be more cautious for delivering apps that really work.
November 03 2008 at 10:47 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyGuys, come on! Every time you perform a web search via search field of your browser (does not matter which browser) the developing company of the browser is getting certain amount of $ for the referral. Apple does it with the Safari search field, Mozilla does it in Firefox, Flock does it, and so on. Firefox brings $30m p./a. Flock $15m...
This explains why devs want to place their browser on the platform having a growing popularity while Apple, being in control of a powerful distributing system for iPhone apps, won't help them with it.
further readings:
http://www.blogherald.com/2008/05/27/the-web-browser-wars/
http://gigaom.com/2005/09/21/google-made-opera-browser-free/
l
and
http://www.blogherald.com/2008/05/22/flock-takes-15m/
I would say this is significantly worse than M$' efforts in putting WMP and IE to every box in the world - one thing is when you're integrating the software tightly with an operating system, and totally different thing is when you explicitly disallow any other software - I think Apple eventually will be persuaded to lift this ban, as otherwise antitrust guys will drive it nuts.
November 03 2008 at 4:57 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHi, one of the reasons why developers seem to hate Apple is lack of transparency, which indirectly is seen as autocracy, there are other reasons too. Read this to know the love and hate relationship between Apple and iPhone developers. http://www.iphonefootprint.com/2008/10/reasons-why-application-developers-hate-apple-and-the-iphone-app-store/.
Moreover, we also complain too much and accuse Apple too often for no valid reasons http://www.iphonefootprint.com/2008/10/apple-nailed-for-hosting-iphone-application-is-app-store-a-classic-protection-racket/
Cowicide said: "Yes, let us not forget that on October 1st, 2008, a federal judge in CA upheld a class action claiming that Apple and AT&T Mobility's five-year exclusive voice and data service provider agreement for the iPhone violates the anti-monopoly provisions of the antitrust laws."
http://www.scribd.com/full/6373862?access_key=key-27mettlt96n373mf54d2
This is only denying motions by AT&T and Apple to dismiss the case as well has denying arbitration as sought by AT&T.
"ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANTAT&TMS MOTION TO COMPELARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS;DENYING DEFENDANT AT&TMSMOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY;GRANTING IN PART AND DENYINGIN PART DEFENDANT APPLESMOTION TO DISMISS"
At this point it is nothing as it is an open and ongoing case.
The mobility today article is a bit misleading by implying anything other than the judge refused to dismiss the claim or bind to arbitration.
Simply because they don't have to, and Apple does what Apple wants.
November 01 2008 at 12:28 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyG1!!!!!!! make it for g1!!!
November 01 2008 at 8:34 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThat is really unfair in my opinion, it is not a fair business competition. Opera compares to Safari of Apple, it is much more better than Safari. it is faster, more organized, and much more familiar to many people than Safari. it also works really well on cellphones; and now it can work on Iphone, it will be very comfortable and make an iphone become more attractive and interesting but Apple did not realize this good opportunity to develop an Iphone. i am so sorry for Apple...
October 31 2008 at 11:15 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI believe there can't be any lawsuit because Apple isn't stopping anyone from writing competing software for the iPhone. Apple just isn't about to distribute it for them.
There's no law that says Apple can stop you from running Opera on your iPhone. But there's also no law that says Apple must use their iTunes method of distributing it for the Opera company.
If Opera wants to run their browser on the iPhone, they are free to do so, and free to find a way to distribute and install it. Apple is not stopping them. They're just not going to help them do it. If Opera was to write their own installer that would tun form your Mac or PC, and it puts Opera on your iPhone, then I believe they are free to do so.
Just because Apple decided to help SOME software developers distribute their software, doesn't force them to help everyone. Opera is a company full of smart programmers. They can figure out another way to distribute their software if they want to, and they are free to do so.
But why not? It's not hurting Apple's business to allow it. Safari is a free application, and Opera for iPhone still needs an iphone to run. All it can do is encourage even more people to buy one. The only way it hurts apple is by making their own software look deficient by comparison (like podcaster did).
November 01 2008 at 12:02 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyKeep digging buddy... I'm still laughing.
October 31 2008 at 8:02 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHot Apps on TUAW
Deals of the Day
more deals- miFrame Picture Frame Dock for iPad for $64 + $8 s&h
- Refurb Apple iPod nano 8GB MP3 Player for $99 + free shipping, 16GB for $119
- Bling Diamond Snap-On Shell Case for iPhone 4 / 4S for $2 + $2 s&h
- Hannspree Apple-Shaped 28" 1080p LCD HDTV for $270 + free shipping
- Philips wOOx Alarm Clock Radio for Apple iPod / iPhone for $60 + free shipping
- iWatchz Elemetal Collection Bracelet for iPod nano for $75 + free shipping
Software Updates
more updates- EFI Firmware Update brings Lion Internet Recovery to 2010-model Macs
- OS X Lion 10.7.3 released with Safari 5.1.3, Wi-Fi bug fix
- Aperture updated to 3.2.2, addresses Photo Stream issue
- Apple updates Keynote to address Lion issues
- Google Search app gets new look on iPad
- Apple releases Apple TV Software Update 4.4.3



78 Comments