Is Apple giving Opera for iPhone the Google Voice treatment?
When Opera Software submitted their browser to the App Store, there was a flurry of blog posts and speculation as to whether it would be approved or rejected.
Fifteen days have passed since then, with neither approval nor rejection being announced.
Granted, Apple has been extremely busy with the launch of the iPad. However, we have heard of developers getting applications approved in a matter of hours. If Apple has amped up enough reviewers to make sure that iPad and other applications are moving through the approval process swiftly, why has Opera languished?
I don't have any insider knowledge on how applications get reviewed, but I keep imagining a huge building full of cubicles with reviewers hunched over computers. Each time "Opera" pops up on the review screen, the reviewer presses "Return To Queue" because none of them want to be the one who either rejects it or approves it.
Perhaps Opera has been stuck in the same holding pattern that Google Voice has been in for the past 7 and a half months. If Apple has actually rejected the Google Voice app, then Google has kept quiet about it. That's entirely possible, although I'm not sure why they would. They had no problem making it clear that Apple required them to rewrite Google Latitude as a Web app. Perhaps they don't want to do anything to strain their working relationship with Apple, which is reportedly very tense in some areas.
Other Google apps are available for the iPhone, including the built-in Maps and YouTube apps (see note below). The Google Mobile app and Google Earth are available in the App Store. Google is the default search engine for Mobile Safari. There have been rumors that Apple is considering making Bing the default search engine for a future version of the iPhone OS. Also, don't forget that Apple bought a mapping service company, giving rise to rumors that "Maps" might not continue to be powered by Google
Then again, if you took a grain of salt for every rumor you heard about Apple, you'd probably die of hypertension.
Getting back to Opera for the iPhone, I hope that it will be approved. There are other Web browsers, such as iCab, available for the iPhone, but all of them use WebKit, which means that you are getting the same browser, just with a different user interface. Opera is a completely different rendering engine. I have some concerns about Opera's model. For those who aren't familiar with it, Opera sends all Web traffic through their proxy, which reformats the page and sends a streamlined version to the phone. As someone who spends an unfortunate amount of time in areas with only AT&T "EDGE" coverage, Opera sounds very enticing. That said, as soon as you start talking about "https," security and privacy concerns quickly come to the forefront.
Assuming that Opera can address those legitimate concerns (or did before it was submitted), Apple should approve it. Then again, Apple should approve Google Voice (and certainly should not have removed existing Google Voice apps). When the iPhone SDK was announced, it came with a very limited set of restrictions regarding what types of applications would not be allowed. Users and developers were presented with what sounded like a "Default Yes" App Store: "As long as your apps don't violate any of these things, it will be approved." There was, however, one additional word after all of the specifics: "unforeseen."
Turns out that "unforeseen" covers apps that "duplicate functionality," provide "limited functionality," or seem like they may compete against Apple in an area where competition is not desired.
While I have some specific hopes for what Apple will announce as part of iPhone OS 4.0, my larger hope is that the App Store process becomes a lot more stable. Once an application is available, it should almost never be "pulled." Users should have the choice of which browser to use, which calendar app to use, and which mail program to use (almost three years later, we're still waiting for a unified Inbox; a competitor could have gotten us a mail client with that ages ago).
UPDATE: As mentioned in the comments, the Maps and YouTube apps were not written by Google, they were written by Apple using the Google APIs. Also, given the announcement today about background location apps, it sure would be nice to have a Google Latitude app instead of just a web page.
Share
Categories
When Opera Software submitted their browser to the App Store, there was a flurry of blog posts and speculation as to whether it would be...
Add a Comment
Well... iPhones come with unlimited data here in the states. So they would definatily want you using less data. Their lack of bandwidth is why VOI appsP were banned from the app store if they weren't WiFi only. That's changed now, but still... Less bandwidth is better for AT&T.
April 11 2010 at 1:46 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI wonder if AT&T would complain because Opera users will be using less bandwidth, thus less money for the big telephone operator.
WEll apple goign wiht a Microsoft product. You are kidding right?
April 09 2010 at 3:13 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyMaybe its because they will reject it since it may compete with the safari update in todays new software announcement...
April 08 2010 at 12:18 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyNow that Google has integrated Flash into Chrome, I expect that Apple's browser/app/Flash prohibition days will be waining. Google seems, so far, to have not pushed a Chrome app for iphone and even more importantly iPad (which I am not interested in buying) {I will always buy Macs until Jobs starts trying to control that platform as well!) but my guess is that Google eventually will submit Chrome browser, as will Firefox, both with integrated Flash.
(Please get informed about the truth of Flash Player, 10.1, Apple's refusal to cooperate with Adobe on GPU integration, the Open Screen Project, etc... before you start bashing Flash! And if "Flash ALWAYS crashes" then stop using Safari) {I have no problem with Flash, but my complaint is about Jobs and his illogical control issues... that's not the Apple that I have known and admired since 1985)
... Jobs will of course reject both browsers... That's when we will have a flashback (no pun intended) to the legal trouble that Microsoft got into for trying to thwart browsers besides IE on Windows. And finally Jobs magical pad will then offer a full web experience! (I might even buy one then)
I am enjoying watching Google quietly set this path in motion.
Well at least it's obvious who the Flash developers are on this thread...
LOL!
That obvious...
Nothing wrong with that I am sure. Gotta feed my baby!
I have just been rather frustrated with the uninformed going on and on like little Stevie jobots, spewing on about Flash as if it is the plague and revealing how little they really know of the subject... I guess I would just like to bend that conversation to something a little more distant from the reality distortion field so many seem so susceptible to.
Beyond the Flash issue, I hope my bigger point gets through.
You knew that when you bought your iphone... but you bought it anyway.
This isn't "news".
Opera *CLEARLY* directly violates the agreement that *OPERA* signed with Apple.
If Opera doesn't like it... why did they sign it?
Or should Opera be allowed to violate it... but myself and 80 THOUSAND other developers can't?
I defend apple on a lot of their decisions with regard to locking down the iPhone OS because I understand their perspective in many cases, but denying (giving the google voice treatment) an app that might compete with their precious Safari browser is BULLSH. It smacks of Microsoft vs. Netscape from years ago. I would really like to see apple rise above that... but sadly, I don't think they will.
April 08 2010 at 11:14 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply*yawn* who cares. Opera isn't as good as Safari anyway!!! Only worth using it if your phone doesn't have a WebKit based browser.
April 08 2010 at 10:57 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI don't see the point in Opera's browser unless you are still using the 1G, I hope Apple just approves it so it can avoid the negative press its just not worth it for an app thats going to prove worthless anyway.
April 08 2010 at 10:42 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHow about the numerous places where 3G coverage is spotty, and the best you can hope for is EDGE, or worse, GPRS?
April 08 2010 at 10:57 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHot Apps on TUAW
Deals of the Day
more deals- Refurb Apple MacBook Air Laptops: 12" 64GB SSD for $699 + free shipping
- JVC Motion Sensing Clock Radio with Dual iPod Docks for $55 + free shipping
- Apple iPhone Headset with Mic for $4 + $2 s&h
- 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
- Hannspree Apple-Shaped 28" 1080p LCD HDTV for $270 + 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



32 Comments