Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opera Mini For iPhone Submitted To App Store Today

Comments Filter:
  • Meh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:16PM (#31589404)
    I'd give it a try if Apple 'blessed' it (which I doubt they will considering how 'fair' they are) but I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by binarylarry (1338699)

      Just wait until Chrome gets Apple's blessing to be placed on the iPhone!

      Don't blame me, I voted for Gassée!

    • Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:20PM (#31589456)

      If Opera figures out how to get flash support into the damn thing, I expect that no amount of reality distortion will be able to protect Jobs from the wrath of the users should they reject the app.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mdwh2 (535323)

        I'm also curious how this runs at all - did Apple finally catch up with the 1990s by adding Java support? Or did Opera waste the time writing a custom version for the minority of Iphone users, because it can't support that basic standard?

    • by MikeFM (12491)
      They'd have to offer some reason to choose Opera over Safari. As Safari already does a good job of rendering pages it'd have to be features. Maybe better prediction of what I want in text fields.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by CxDoo (918501)

        Opera Mini is not a browser; it serves images rendered by Opera's servers.
        It is significantly faster on mobile platforms than proper browsers, not to mention bandwidth savings.

        • Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)

          by CxDoo (918501) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:41PM (#31589694)

          Just to clarify my point, it is practically a browser but it contains no rendering engine.

          • Re:Meh (Score:4, Informative)

            by Mike Buddha (10734) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @06:30PM (#31590352)

            This is patently false. Opera pre-processes the web pages via their proxy farm to optimize the images and web pages for the various form factor devices that it runs on. It is a browser, and it contains a very fast rendering engine.

            • Re:Meh (Score:5, Informative)

              by CxDoo (918501) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @07:22PM (#31591142)

              Instead of entering the discussion on what the meaning of "render" is I will just point out that Opera Mini is useless without access to "proxy farm".

              Try to access a web site not available from outside you network (e.g. wifi router cfg page) - not possible.

              Try to open saved html page - ditto.

              Can't render shit on its own? Yup, that's your 'very fast rendering engine'.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Mike Buddha (10734)

                Wrong, actually. The pages are sent to the device from the proxy server in the compressed OBML format. They must be rendered in order to be viewed. Rendering MUST TAKE PLACE if you want to see a web page in a format in anything other raw page markup, in this case, a binary format. The format that the information is sent to the device is irrelevant. What is sent from the proxy server is most definitely NOT 'images rendered by Opera's servers' as you stated previously.

                Yup, that's the 'very fast rendering engi

            • by Homburg (213427)

              Opera's website is not entirely clear about how Opera Mini works, but I think the parent is pretty much correct. The servers that support Opera Mini run the same rendering engine that is used in the desktop version of Opera [opera.com], and the CSS features which Opera Mini supports are limited by the graphics system running on these servers [opera.com]. This suggests pretty strongly to me that the HTML+CSS is indeed rendered to an image server-side.

      • They'd have to offer some reason to choose Opera over Safari. As Safari already does a good job of rendering pages it'd have to be features. Maybe better prediction of what I want in text fields.

        I don't know about Opera mini, and I know even less about Opera mini for the iPhone, but Opera has the best support of any browser that I know of(iPhone Safari is a close second) for HTML5's specialized input fields in forms, so I wouldn't be surprised.

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Informative)

      by rbb (18825) <remco@rc[ ]rg ['6.o' in gap]> on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:31PM (#31589566) Homepage

      I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does

      Actually, there's a video [youtube.com] showing it to be quite a bit faster than Safari in a side-by-side comparison.

      • As you can tell by their "compression technology" comments, Opera Mini uses a proxy server to front its requests. Much like a Danger Hiptop. This means they can shrink pages down before sending them, downrezzing images and such.

        However, much like on a HipTop, this means that JavaScript is problematic. Since the rendering isn't happening on the device and JS isn't running as you navigate, many pages will just foul up.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#JavaScript_support [wikipedia.org]

        Some of Opera Mini's UI is quite s

      • Re:Meh (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @06:45PM (#31590586)

        The video is misleading. The Opera side begins browsing and clicking on links before the page is done loading, thus the entire page is not loaded, but they count the page twoards the total.

        1:17 - page stops loading when screen is pressed.
        1:26 - browsing begins before page is finished loading, appears to end when pressed.
        1:33 - page stops loading when screen is pressed. (full page does appear to load however)
        1:44 - page stops loading when screen is pressed.
        1:53 - page loads completely

        It looks fast, but still misleading.

        • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mjwx (966435) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:22AM (#31593876)

          1:17 - page stops loading when screen is pressed.
          1:26 - browsing begins before page is finished loading, appears to end when pressed.
          1:33 - page stops loading when screen is pressed. (full page does appear to load however)
          1:44 - page stops loading when screen is pressed.
          1:53 - page loads completely

          It looks fast, but still misleading.

          So...

          It complies with Apple's code of advertising then.

          Just to be pedantic, users don't wait until a page is fully loaded before trying to use it, so getting a page to the point where it is displayed and barely usable is more important then having the whole thing loaded.

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Informative)

      by theaveng (1243528) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:43PM (#31589714)

      I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari

      Apparently you didn't RTFA or watch the included youtube video. Opera Mini loaded 5 pages in the same time as it took Safari to load 1. Of course it does that using compression.

      You can read more about the compression technology here. It's somewhat similar to Opera Turbo for dialup users, but much more efficient:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_mini#Functionality [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Informative)

      by Guspaz (556486) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:45PM (#31589742)

      It more than matches the speed of Safari, it destroys it. Safari is a traditional browser; establish a connection to the web server (some round trips right there), request and download the requested HTML page (another round trip), download any first-tier needed assets (JS, CSS, images, etc) (likely not all done in parallel, more round trips), download any second-tier assets (example, images from CSS, anything dynamically written by the JS, etc), and so on. All in all, you're probably adding in dozens of round trips at the least. The latency on the 3G link alone (ignoring internet latency) is probably 100+ms for a round trip, so you're adding multiple seconds worth of latency just by being on 3G.

      Opera, on the other hand, does absolutely everything server-side. Any requests are being made from a connection that isn't sitting on the other side of a 100+ms wireless link, and they probably do a lot of caching on top of that. The actual data is sent to the client browser in the minimum number of round trips; enough to establish the connection and make the request. All content comes back in one single compressed glob. A page that might have taken 10 seconds to load before can suddenly load in half a second.

      There are downsides, of course, to having no client-side javascript. Most web apps require connections to the server to do what was before a local operation. You're effectively streaming any changes to the page from the server to the client (presumably keeping the connection open while looking at the page in case any changes need to be sent), and this is not ideal.

      Unfortunately, it's mandatory; Apple won't allow javascript execution locally.

      • How hard would it be to set up your own server? I've used ziproxy quite a bit when I was at my parents dial up.

      • Re:Meh (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @06:55PM (#31590734) Homepage

        Safari is a traditional browser; establish a connection to the web server (some round trips right there), request and download the requested HTML page (another round trip), download any first-tier needed assets (JS, CSS, images, etc) (likely not all done in parallel, more round trips), download any second-tier assets (example, images from CSS, anything dynamically written by the JS, etc), and so on. All in all, you're probably adding in dozens of round trips at the least.

        Hasn't worked that way since HTTP v1.0, when each thing you wanted had to be requested individually, which sucked which is why they changed it. Now browsers can request many elements at once, and the server can send them all back in the same stream. There are multiple round trips needed for establishing the connection and making the initial http request, and any elements that the browser only knows it needs until after processing a script of course have to wait for the script to be received and processed. But there should not be seconds of latency merely due to mandatory round-trip times because there aren't that many.

        Obviously the way Opera does it is still going to be way faster.

    • I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).

      Private API's are mostly irrelevant - Opera Mini works by rendering your request on a server and returning the results to you. Browsing speed is all about caching on the server plus it being able to get the complete page data faster than you can.

      On Edge Opera mini would probably be faster, but on 3G I'm not sure it would really be that much be

    • by citizenr (871508)

      I'd give it a try if Apple 'blessed' it (which I doubt they will considering how 'fair' they are)

      They better, or Apple will end up like MS with EU slapping penalties and making demands.

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by node 3 (115640) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @07:44PM (#31591458)

      I'd give it a try if Apple 'blessed' it (which I doubt they will considering how 'fair' they are) but I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).

      What API's would those be? Safari uses WebKit, just like any other app on the iPhone that wants to serve up web pages.

      As far as WebKit goes, what do you suppose it can do that some other rendering engine won't be able to do? It can be written in C, can use OpenGL (as well as things like CoreAnimation)...

      So, really, what super-secret APIs are you thinking of here?

      Apple keeps APIs private for only two reasons:

      1. They aren't finished yet.
      2. Security/Privacy.

      As for the "fairness" of Apple, and whether they'll approve Opera, they probably won't. It's not because (like so many people think) that they don't want the competition, it's because they believe Safari is the best browser out there, and want to keep the iPhone experience fairly consistent in terms of core functionality.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Kitkoan (1719118)
        While it's no longer a private, unusable API function, the previous ban on using 'CGImageRef UIGetScreenImage();' [tuaw.com] in any App Store approved program makes me think that there are quite a few other private API's and API functions that while people have found, cannot use. Also seems that Apps cannot access information stored in the calendar, amongst other things. These might effect security/privacy in theory, but these function's and private API's usage is not limited to just those uses and options.
  • ....Opera Mini rejected from app store. Oops, sorry, jumped the gun.
  • DOA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:19PM (#31589436)

    Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

    But lets all keep saying Microsoft is evil.

    • It's not over till the fat lady sings.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by The Fat Lady (1774176)

        Oooooooh, Ave Steve Joooobs, oh Steve Jooooobs, oh Steve Joooobs,

        I siiing to you right now, don't blooock the neeeew, submiiiiision to the Apple stooooore,

        I teeeeel you thiiiiis beeecaaaauuuse, I haaaave to reaaaally make suuuuuuure that you wiiill
        dooooo so

        becaaaauuuuse I'm The Fat Laaaaaaadyyyyyyyy.

        Done.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by whisper_jeff (680366)
      You keep using this word evil but I don't think you know what it means.

      Creating a "walled garden" for an app store is _NOT_ evil. Deal with it. In case you hadn't noticed, virtually every store on the planet practices that every day. They don't just stock products because they exist - they only stock products that match their store's motif if they think they can sell it. Sorry. Not evil. Totally, utterly, not evil.

      Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "evil".
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by EvanED (569694)

        The app store not carrying things isn't evil. That's fine.

        Apple making it so that the only way you can load programs onto your iPhone is, however, somewhat evil. (At least in combination with the above fact.)

        Wal-Mart doesn't make you sign a contract saying you'll never shop at Target before they let you into the store.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Well then you've justified why Microsoft wouldn't be evil.

      • by Draek (916851)

        I don't think *you* know what "evil" means. "Evil" is a moral qualifier, and morality being entirely subjective, you *cannot* state "this practice is not evil" without suffixing it with an "in my opinion".

        Apple's control-obsessed tendencies may not be evil for *you*, but that does not mean they aren't for anybody else. Stop trying to push your own opinion onto everybody else.

      • Flip the scenario and imagine Microsoft or any flavor of Linux not allowing apps that "duplicated functionality" onto their hallowed grounds. How's that taste? Tastes like hypocrisy to me.
      • Re:DOA (Score:5, Informative)

        by iammani (1392285) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @07:55PM (#31591574)
        Because they are not the only store in town! If I am allowed to buy from only a single store and they dont stock certain products, I would be pretty pissed off. If they specifically reject products that compete with their own products, I would consider them pretty much EVIL.
      • Re:DOA (Score:4, Informative)

        by Lakitu (136170) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @08:10PM (#31591748)

        Your analogy is dumb. The app store is the only store that exists in this case. Nobody cares all that much if Starbucks carries the NYT as its only newspaper, because you can go just about anywhere else you want to buy any other kind of newspaper. If Starbucks were the only place in the world you could buy newspapers, and they refused to carry certain ones -- especially with spurious reasoning as to why some are rejected and others are not -- it would be evil.

        Apple is leveraging its position to extort money and control from users and developers at the expense of the best interests of people who have bought iphones and itouches. It's not very much different from Microsoft's IE maneuvers in the late 90s and early 2000s.

        It's not genocide evil, but if you're going to judge evil in a boolean manner, it's totally, utterly, completely evil. The only way it is by being pedantic about what is or is not evil and defining it so as to only includes things you decide, which is pretty ironic, given the content of your post.

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      Bah Microsoft is evil, as is Apple, and even Google sometimes. I will let the fact that Google is stopping there censoring of Chinese search results speak for it's self.
      The difference is that Microsoft is Super BIG and Evil. Google and Apple are just big and evil.
      The other difference is at least we are Microsoft and Apple's customers. We are Google's product.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by v1 (525388)

      Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

      yepyep. that's their favorite rejection reason. "it competes with us". Most businesses can't just tell someone else entering their market "nope, that would compete with us, you can't do that."

      • Aren't there like laws and stuff against intentionally limiting competition?

        • Aren't there like laws and stuff against intentionally limiting competition?

          Nope. Not unless you're the only game in town already, or you conspire with your "competitors" to freeze others out.

          Apple is only one of many players in the smartphone market, so consumers have plenty of alternatives. No harm done.

        • by v1 (525388)

          If they were doing it some other way it would probably be illegal. But since it's their product and their store, within those bounds, they can make their own rules.

          At least that's how the law is set up atm. If you want a piece of their action, you have to play by their rules. If you don't like it, sell your own product and make your own store and you can do whatever you want, is what they will say.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chris Burke (6130)

        Most businesses can't just tell someone else entering their market "nope, that would compete with us, you can't do that."

        Uh yes most businesses can say "nope" to a competitor who wants to sell their product through the businesses' own store.

        Lowes doesn't sell Home Depot's brand of power tools; Best Buy doesn't sell computers using Fry's brand of motherboards. The brick-and-mortar Apple store doesn't sell Windows-based PCs. All shocking instances of anti-competitive behavior, I know. :P

        • by prockcore (543967)

          Amazon sells books branded as "Barnes & Noble Classics" and B&N sells books branded with "amazon" all the time.

      • by cgenman (325138)

        My favorite is that it competes with something that is already purchased. That means it's not about manipulating purchasing decisions, but controlling the medium.

      • Most businesses can't just tell someone else entering their market "nope, that would compete with us, you can't do that."

        Yeah, that's why Gateway stores sold Dell Computers. Oh wait...

        Who mods these comments up?

    • Opera mini is a curious thing that does no parsing on the device, it does it all on the Opera server...

      Apple will not disallow it, as it does not do anything like add an alternate Javascript parser on the phone - nor does it really duplicate Safari much, as the rendering is not really the same.

    • Yeah, I had the same thought. This has about as much chance of making it to the iPhone as Microsoft has of officially declaring that Linux doesn't infringe any of its patents tomorrow.

      And Apple and Microsoft are both evil. Years ago, when I didn't consider Apple evil I knew they had the potential to become so, and they have fulfilled that potential, though not in quite the way I would've guessed they would years ago.

    • Why not though? If the App costs money - wouldn't Apple take its cut, make money off of it? It's not like they make money selling Safari, a product that comes free on every Apple Product.

      • Because it allows app developers to do an end run around Apple control, and release apps that render entirely in the browser, and therefore are not subject to Apple approval?
    • by JohnG (93975)
      If you had a chicken wing restaurant, would you let another chicken wing restaurant serve its wings in your parking lot? Now, are you evil, or just a hypocrite?
    • by Chris Burke (6130)

      I just went to Barnes & Nobles' website, and I can't find the Kindle anywhere!

      I don't know why you are talking about Microsoft or Apple, when B&N is so evil as to not sell a competitor's product in their own store!

      Why is the government not stopping them?!

      P.S. Hope Opera doesn't get rejected, but seriously, if it does... "Store doesn't sell product that competes with store owner" is hardly news and hardly evil.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:20PM (#31589450)

    Yeah, and Apple is going to remove it "fast as a rocket" too.

    Steve doesn't compete. He tells you what you can have, and you either accept it or you don't. If you don't like it, go buy a Droid.

    • Steve doesn't compete. [...] If you don't like it, go buy a Droid.

      ...and how exactly is that not "competition"?

    • by grumpyman (849537)
      I'll be a bit surprised if the Opera guys didn't communicate with Apple about their plan. I can't imagine they just code away the whole way and now just hold their breath and cross their fingers...
      • by shird (566377)

        Most likely their backup plan is to sue. They had their lawyers go over the EULA with a fine tooth comb (Opera mentions this) and they seem to think there is no problem. Opera mini renders on the server side, not client side, thus not competing with the current browser, apparently.

        If Apple rejects it, Opera lawyers up (see Microsoft and the EU with regards to Opera). They may even require Apple to give iPhone users a 'browser ballot' - Opera may even be hoping they reject it.

  • Force Their Hand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:20PM (#31589454) Journal

    from the thats-not-gonna-work dept.

    Publicize it like they (and you) are doing and actually it just might work. Dare Apple look any more evil than their dictatorship at the app store has made them out to be?

    • Re:Force Their Hand (Score:4, Informative)

      by idontgno (624372) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:33PM (#31589586) Journal

      Dare Apple look any more evil than their dictatorship at the app store has made them out to be?

      Oh, they dare. They dare.

      They already have their core addicts ^w market, fashionistas and fanbois. The point of their iron control is not to enhance market share; the point of their market share is to enhance their iron control.

      To paraphrase Ernestine as an Appstore administrator: "We don't care. We're Apple. We don't have to."

      • by ukyoCE (106879)

        The point of their "iron control" is to make a good device, instead of making a sloppy device where they have to support other devs' software as part of the core experience. It's a very different approach from open devices, but it has its advantages.

        Their browser is tightly integrated into the phone experience. Allowing other browsers would mean creating an API, limiting functionality of their browser to published functionality any browser can interoperate with, and so on. It's a lot of effort to dilute

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by EvanED (569694)

          It's the exact same thing Microsoft did on Windows.

          No it's not... it's not even close, really. You give one of the reasons yourself -- the monopoly thing. But beyond that, MS never prevented 3rd party browsers from running on the system. Even at the height of IE dominance (both in terms of market share and even, IMO for a short time, quality), it was never hard to run other browsers on Windows.

          This is entirely different from the iPhone situation, where Apple doesn't just get to decide what you see by defaul

          • by ukyoCE (106879)

            Yeah, you're right - I should have said "same thing Microsoft tried to do on Windows". I was referring to the integration of the browser with the OS (remember "active desktop", etc.). Those features did exist in Windows98, and they did not even remotely support alternate browsers. (likewise if you type a url into Windows Explorer). This is the same "technical reason" Apple doesn't want to support alternate browsers in the iPhone.

            The explicit blocking of competing browsers is definitely unique to the iPh

    • by MBCook (132727)

      This whole this is pretty passive-agressive. The count-up clock of how long they've been waiting for approval is really passive-agressive.

      I don't really care about Opera myself, but this is going to be so much fun to watch. Opera has been doing a good job setting up their case that they are being unfairly denied when it happens.

      So does Apple deny, look bad, and get hit with a lawsuit, or cave in? I can't see Steve caving.

      FIGHT!

      • I was going to post the exact same thing, this is one of the most passive-aggressive things I've seen a company do. I love the competition to guess when Apple is going to approve it (and win a free iPhone!). Bonus points for anyone who can find the URL of the page which probably already exists which explains that it was denied.

    • by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @06:30PM (#31590346)
      Apple doesn't care what a tiny minority of geeks thinks. If they did the iPad would have 2 cameras, 4 media card slots, 5 usb ports, 2 removable batteries, a combo OLED / eInk screen and would run Linux. And it would cost under $300.
  • What major deficiency is there in the Safari browser? It works quite well, performance is good, tight integration with all internal and third party apps. And scores 100 on Acid 3. Unless you have a 2G iPhone or live in an area with really bad service, I fail to see what this offers.

    And I'm quite happy without Flash, TYVM.
    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      And I'm quite happy without Flash, TYVM. You've obviously never tried to view porn on your iPhone... That's why I use an Android phone; it let's me view porn, even while driving! For living in a Disneyfied world of illusion, there's iPhone. For everything else, there's Android.
    • by Culture20 (968837)

      What major deficiency is there in the Safari browser?

      Try viewing large animated gifs like the weather radar on http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/index_loop.php [weather.gov] I can grab the image on a server, split it into parts, and have javascript show me each image, but somehow, an animated gif larger than 2MB is blocked by safari.

  • by VoxMagis (1036530) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @05:30PM (#31589560)

    Whether accepted or not, Opera has gained a lot of basically free publicity with this. That's what it is about, and good for them.

    I am not absolutely sure that Apple will reject it. If I was Apple though, I would make them change the name to, for example, 'Opera Web Viewer', and not allow it to access https pages at all. Then they get to claim user-security and still let this thing in.

    I love Opera and all, but I'm not sure I would use it myself. I'll look at it when it's available, no reason to worry until then.

  • Looks like they're giving out a free iPhone if you guess closest to the release time on the link in the summary. Looks like "Never" isn't an option so they're optimistic.
    • That's not optimism, that's a challenge to Apple. I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that they've already got a "submission rejected" page on their server ready to go.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @06:15PM (#31590140)

    I really hope Apple rejects it quickly so Opera tosses it up on the jailbroken software distribution channels (Cydia/Rock). All the more stuff to show my friends to get them interested in breaking Apple's chokehold on their hardware.

    It's not like I'd refuse to use it if it was on the Apple Store, I'd actually be rather happy if it was for all the people who choose not to jailbreak, but I imagine that Opera is waiting to see if they get Apple's blessing before rolling it out by other means. And I bet that Apple will likely delay their "decision" as long as possible (indefinitely?) until people/media forget about it, then quietly deny it if pushed to a decision.

    • by JohnG (93975)
      Yeah, because it would be impossible for Opera to put out a press release saying "Opera mini rejected by app store" and bring the media right back down upon the issue. Good thing Steve Jobs is the 'evil' genius, and not you. Your plan for platform domination sucks.
  • by obarthelemy (160321) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @06:21PM (#31590228)

    My guess is Opera have no hope of getting it approved, buyt are starting to build a case to force the iGarden open the same way they forced the Wintel one. Will take a while, though.

  • Does it support Flash?

This screen intentionally left blank.

Working...