Opera For iPhone To Test Apple's Resolve 292
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the that's-not-gonna-work dept.
from the that's-not-gonna-work dept.
Barence writes "Opera is launching a version of its Mini browser for the iPhone in what could prove a landmark decision for Apple's app gatekeepers. Apple has been traditionally hostile to rival browsers, with Mozilla claiming that Apple made it 'too hard' for its rivals to develop a browser for the iPhone. However, Opera remains bullishly confident that its app will be approved. 'We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store,' an Opera spokesperson told PC Pro. 'However, we hope that Apple will not deny their users a choice in web browsing experience.'" I can't imagine what would motivate them to do that.
Opera's Motivation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forced to include in EU? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not only that, but I wonder if the SEC/FCC would start breathing down their backs if Opera got denied. Especially after that whole Google Voice thing...
Re:Forced to include in EU? (Score:0, Interesting)
Apple is not a monopoly (there are many other choices for mobile phones and operating systems), so the same rules would not apply. However, I think competition authorities will be watching this one closely. Most of them (and us) would agree that having more browsers is better.
Re:Opera's Motivation (Score:4, Interesting)
Certainly, Apple will reject the app and Opera knows it. Maybe Opera tries to strengthen Apple's "Evil Empire" image and deal with it with the help of EU (just like they did with Microsoft recently).
My first thought on reading the summary was "where's the leverage?" Either Opera is talking right through their own asses, or they have some serious leverage -- certainly more than just bad PR (which Apple seems immune to anyway). They've invested time and manpower in this project, one can only hope that someone's cojones over at Apple are in a vice grip, and that we will all soon enjoy the big red O on our iPhones.
Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (Score:4, Interesting)
At least not in the strictest technical sense. It doesn't understand html, etc. ..."just" it's own, highly compressed format; sent to it from Opera servers.
Not that it'll make a difference to Apple.
Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (Score:4, Interesting)
What about opera mobile? (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of porting opera mini on every existing platform, why not assign more resources to do the same for opera mobile, or at least make opera mini as good as opera mobile?
I paid to use opera mobile on my windows mobile phone (htc tytn II), and would gladly pay again to be able to use it on my android phone. I have opera mini on it, it is not usable at all.
Re:Forced to include in EU? (Score:1, Interesting)
No - it's not the same. Microsoft is a monopoly, they are not allowed to do that. Apple is not a monopoly, they are.
So it's more akin to walking in to a house: Microsoft is walking into somebody else's house, thus breaking and entering, whereas Apple is walking into their own house, thereby doing noting illegal.
Re:Opera Mini? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm. Maybe I can answer my own question. It would be much easier to roll out Opera Mini for iPhone, since it is already implemented in Java (making it OS / hardware independent). If Apple approves Opera Mini, then Opera can begin investing the resources into porting Opera Mobile to the iPhone platform. So perhaps Opera is testing Apple with a low-risk, low-investment browser first. If Apple approves mini, then Opera could perhaps have some legal ground to challenge Apple should they later deny Opera Mobile.
Re:It does not violate SDK terms (Score:3, Interesting)
Big question for me is whether or not you can turn off image loading. If so it would become my favorite app ever. Nothing more frustrating than wanting to load a page full of mainly text and having it take 5 minutes because Apple doesn't want you to ruin your browsing experience...
Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (Score:2, Interesting)
While I agree that the FCC/EU would do frak all to apple over a denial of another browser. I fairly sure the app store is a market, and that apple is an abusive monopoly there.
Re:Opera is lousy from my experience, please go aw (Score:2, Interesting)
I really wish Opera would just go away already. I'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.
Have you tried Chrome yet?
Re:Opera's Motivation (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is, this is a high-profile app that Apple can approve and point to, saying "Look, we're letting our competitors in!" even though it doesn't open the platform in any meaningful way. So I actually think there's a very good chance they will approve it.
Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple introduced DRM-free tracks in iTunes not long after few European countries expressed the possibility of blocking iTunes outright (not saying that was the only possible reason)
One doesn't have to be a monopoly to be reminded of obligations. Abusive is enough; braking law is enough (as you...sort of pointed out). I wonder which iPhone will finally have removable battery...
Re:Opera's Motivation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Forced to include in EU? (Score:5, Interesting)
But they didn't do that. In any way. They simply didn't include everyone else's browser by default.
A little more egregious than that. They intentionally deviated from HTML standards to cause incompatibilities with other browsers, and they used "security" updates to reset IE as the default browser.
It's nowhere in the same ballpark as what Apple has with the iPhone. But it's a very different beast -- a primary appeal of a Windows machine is the huge list of compatible software. The iPhone wasn't conceived that way -- but it's steadily heading into that territory; wouldn't be surprised if Warren G pays them a visit before too long.
Re:Oh, really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple would be no more forced to apply by the same rules as Microsoft, than you are forced to spent the rest of your days in prison, just because someone else was sentenced that for their crime.
Or rather, because someone else was sentenced for the same crime you've committed.
Explain how Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behavior with its tiny OS market share and still-small smartphone market share. (Especially in the EU. Its market share in Europe is even smaller than in the US)
Maybe it's not engaged in anti-competitive behaviour with its tiny smartphone market share, but aren't these apps also available on the iPod? There they have a much higher [wikipedia.org] market share (90% of the hard drive MP3 player market, and 70% of the entire market). Surely locking down competitor apps on the iPod would fall within the anti-competitive behaviour laws? I wonder, if they were forced to open this up on the iPod, would they still keep it locked down on the iPhone - that would be interesting to see (of course, it's all moot until we see if they actually don't allow Opera on iPhones).
Re:Forced to include in EU? (Score:3, Interesting)
Your analogy didn't work. A crime is a crime. Circumstances come into play sometimes. You feel that anti-competitive behavior is only illegal for big companies. That's fine.
It doesn't have anything to do with big companies. That's like beating someone to death is only illegal for big strong people and not for infirm grandmothers. The size speaks to capability to commit the crime. An infirm grandmother can come up and punch me and that is not murder. If Mike Tyson does it, it may well be murder. It's not because the law treats boxers and grannies differently, it's just those people have different capabilities to commit the crime.
It doesn't mean we are uneducated. It merely means we differ in our ideas on monopolies, market, and government intervention.
No, it means you misunderstand what the crime is, and don't comprehend the reason for the crime.
What happens when Apple gets big, then we punish them? Is it fair to let them get bigger by being anti-competitive?
But that's just it, Apple is being competitive. They're competing against Dell and RIM and a dozen other companies. What they're doing is legal and in no way undermines the free market. Apple is rewarded and punished for their actions by the operation of the market. Some people will buy alternatives to the iPhone because they want more choice in browsers.
It is only when one company has overwhelming market share for a market that they aren't punished for breaking interoperability or reducing choice. In that case, capitalism is broken. So we made a law to prevent that from happening. Shouldn't you have learned all this in both history and economics classes?
Is it okay for a child to cheat on a test as long as it's not an IMPORTANT test?
That's not even the right question. Rather sometimes it legal but unethical to lie and sometimes it is illegal because it causes significant harm to society.
When does anti-competitive behavior become a crime- 17% market share for some markets is considered dominating. For others, 40% would be dominating, still others not until you have close to 60% or 80%. When is a company big enough to be capable of committing a crime?
Illegal anticompetitive action is measured when a company gains significant influence on a market and uses that to harm competition in another market. A rule of thumb for investigators is 70%, but it is the effect upon the market that determines the law. Can't you just go read the law you're discussing so you actually know this?
Get off your high horse and understand that not all of us just assume the government is right about everything. Some of us view it as our duty to question what the fed says.
Questioning is fine, but question from a position of knowledge with some useful suggestions. Once you understand the laws and the purpose, it makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is wrong with the law? Be specific. What do you propose to change?