

Time since Opera Mini for iPhone was officially submitted to Apple - edd
http://my.opera.com/community/countup/

======
jsm386
_Opera Mini requests web pages through the Opera Software company's servers,
which process and compress them before relaying the pages back to the mobile
phone. This compression process makes transfer time about two to three times
faster, and the pre-processing smoothes compatibility with web pages not
designed for mobile phones._

How is this not a massive privacy/security issue? You are trusting Opera to
not look at your content, and as mentioned later on: _Opera Mini has received
some criticism because it does not offer true, end-to-end security when
visiting encrypted sites such as paypal.com.[49] When visiting an encrypted
web page, the Opera Software company's servers decrypt the page, then re-
encrypt it themselves, breaking end-to-end security_

~~~
glymor
The whole point of Opera Mini as an app is for them to rearrange your content;
complaining that they can see the content seems schizophrenic.

~~~
KWD
However, Opera needs to be sure to disclose/advertise the app as a proxy and
not just a browser. Personally, I will never want to use a "browser" app with
a proxy in the middle, but as long as others are fully aware of what they are
downloading then they at least knowingly get to assume whatever risk is
involved.

~~~
TallGuyShort
The people who actually care (i.e. you and I) already know about it. The
people who don't care, have much bigger security concerns, IMO. Most people
don't check for SSL when entering credit card information, so I doubt they
would care about this if they thought it good speed up their browsing as much
as Opera says it can.

edit: Though I do agree - I would trust them a little more if they were a
little more outspoken about the security implications of what's going on.

~~~
stanleydrew
I didn't know about it. I had Opera Mini on my old ADP1 and had no idea it was
acting as a proxy viewer. Or maybe Opera Mini on Android isn't the same as the
one currently submitted to Apple?

------
pg
What a weird platform the iPhone is, when established companies like Opera
have to resort to such things.

~~~
ynniv
Hmm. My mouse was on its way to the downvote button when I noticed who made
this comment (that I paused is also interesting).

Apple has placed very few restrictions on the iPhone, almost exclusively so
that they can control the majority of the user experience. To that end, they
have said that applications which can run other applications are not allowed.
Reflecting on other industries, this doesn't bother me. Do we expect Barnes
and Noble to allow people to run a competing store in their store? Maybe a
newspaper giving free ad space to someone who re-sells it at a profit? To me
it's strange when people expect Apple to conduct their platform in a wholly
different manner than a traditional business.

To put the icing on this cake, it would be a non-issue if Opera-for-iPhone
simply augmented the built in browser components instead of shipping something
which unnecessarily violates the terms of the store. We could easily see a
Firefox, Chrome, or Opera on the iPhone if they used WebKit for their JS and
DOM parsing and rendering. Maybe that is too much to expect from a browser
company, but I certainly don't expect companies to pout and stomp their feet
when Apple doesn't give them what they want.

~~~
lambda
You wouldn't expect a competing store in a Barnes and Noble because that's
their store; they own it.

However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own the phone. I should
be able to install the apps I want on it, regardless of who wrote them or sold
them to me.

If someone sold you a house, but with the restriction that you could never
sublet, could only ever use approved furniture from Ikea, and you had to give
them regular access to inspect the house to make sure you're not violating
their rules, would you buy such a house?

Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?

~~~
bonaldi
Plenty of people accept similar restrictions to live in gated communities or
in exclusive apartments with tenant associations.

That's what Apple's offering: A gated community. Businesses have to play by
its rules to get in there. If you too want the benefits of living in its world
you don't get to paint your house pink.

~~~
jhancock
What's wrong with it? Apple (and many others) are using federal criminal laws
to enforce their business model. It is very possibly a criminal act to unlock
your iPhone. Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to
protect a business model?

The gated community you refer are not using criminal laws; just civil
contracts to enforce the position.

~~~
ubernostrum
_Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a
business model?_

So far as I can tell they haven't. And, yes, the judicial system will get
involved if you run afoul of your gated community's regulations: you'll be
evicted by an officer of the law, and you'll be arrested and jailed if you
attempt to remain in your former home after the eviction.

~~~
jhancock
"So far as I can tell they haven't."

The threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent for millions of people to have
unlocked phones??

Don't confuse the home ownership issue. The actions you are talking about (law
officers arresting you) come after a civil process is lost. Such civil
processes must be instigated at the cost of the plaintiff, not the government.

Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal
penalties. It is enough that the act of unlocking the phones is illegal and
closes off competition. If it were not for laws that provide for these
penalties, there would be a huge secondary market of unlocked devices, instead
of the grey/black market that exists.

~~~
ubernostrum
_Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal
penalties._

As they say on Wikipedia: "citation needed". Last I checked Apple hadn't
bothered going after anyone who'd unlocked their phone, or even anyone who'd
distributed tools for unlocking phones. Also, it's questionable that the law
would even support that -- there's a DMCA exemption for cell-phone unlocking,
for example, which means the only likely grounds for going after someone would
be civil proceedings based on breach of user agreements.

Which means that, um, you're spouting off a bunch of hyperbole unrelated to
actual reality.

~~~
jhancock
I live in a reality where I can read public U.S. documents.

Here's one where Apple requests to keep it a criminal act to unlock an iPhone:
"Apple Inc. submits this responsive comment in opposition to proposed Class #1
contained in proposed exemptions labeled 5A and 11A3 submitted by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation"

[http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-
inc-31.pd...](http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf)

To date, it is legal for an "individual" to unlock their phone (an iPhone's
additional behavior, not so certain) but it is still a criminal act to provide
services or create tools to assist such acts. The fact that the government
isn't currently prosecuting does not make the threat any more real. The threat
keeps the unlocking market from being legitimate and pervasive. The current
Copyright Office exemption only applies to a narrow range of activity leaving
wholesale unlocking a gray/black market.

This link has a solid catalog of the current state of the Copyright Office's
DMCA position: <http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking>

You can see the most recent EFF request is September, 2009. It seems pretty
clear the status of jailbreaking is still up in the air.

It took me one Google search to find dozens of quality sources of information
on this topic. Next time, please do your own search before publicly accusing
someone of being disconnected from reality.

------
gokhan
Great move by opera. \- (Try to) Force apple to act quickly (When do you think
Opera Mini will be approved by Apple?). \- Create something viral to promote
it (669 tweets at the moment). \- Involve customers, convert new users through
voting (Upcoming guesses)

Costs an iPhone and some developer time. Brilliant.

~~~
alain94040
_669 tweets_

Not to rain on your parade, but do you think Steve Jobs is scared by 669
tweets? He has taken much more heat (think FCC letters about monopoly
behavior) and still didn't move.

~~~
there
669 tweets are 669 mentions of opera and have nothing to do with steve jobs.
this is marketing, not trying to scare steve jobs or apple into anything.

------
yumraj
Well, call me a pessimist but they should ask people to estimate when it would
be _rejected_.

Apple will use the standard response that it replicates functionality already
present in the iPhone, i.e. Safari, and could/would confuse users.

I'd be extremely happy if I'm provided wrong.

A request to Apple fanboys: Kindly reply with _why_ before you downvote me.

~~~
pclark
downvoted because there are already browsers in the app store that "replicate
functionality already present in the iPhone"

~~~
carussell
Call bullshit on the idea in those words, sure. But don't downvote _the
comment_ that describes it. That's the actual rationale developers have
received for app rejections in the past.

~~~
pclark
when was the last account of this happening? i haven't read much about a
rejection of that kind for ages.

------
barredo
This is a very clever move, and I think Apple will either approve or reject
the app asap.

If they reject it I guess it will be under 'security' concerns, and not
duplication of iphone functionality, followed by two months of blog posts and
tweets about how Apple is evil and how Opera Mini is insecure and a CPU-hog in
the other hand

~~~
mbreese
Why should Apple treat them any differently than any other company? I assume
they'll have to wait in line, just like everyone else. And when they deny it
for security reasons, there will be a long laundry list of changes that would
have to be made.

I do think you are right though about how there will be the inevitable
onslaught of Opera vs. Apple posts (similar to the Apple vs. Adobe posts).
But, I think that this will be a little more cut and dry. Opera would have had
a better argument if they had actually submitted a browser, as opposed to a
proxy.

------
valums
_When do you think Opera Mini will be approved by Apple?_

Never, and it's a pity. Opera looks really impressive, judging by their video.

------
natch
I don't get this. Why submit an iPhone app that is (apparently) without iPad
functionality, during the time window when Apple has started accepting
"universal" iPhone/iPad apps? Why not get it right, do it as a universal app,
and then submit it?

Maybe it's because they hope to avoid the duplication of functionality trap.
On iPhone, at least on the current OS for iPhones, you don't get multiple
content panels on the same screen except as part of a horizontal scroll. On
iPad, I believe you do, so in that case there would be duplication.

~~~
fhars
The iPad has no cell connectivity, so the main selling point of opera mini,
reduced cell bandwidth usage, is useless on the iPad.

~~~
mtarnovan
Some Ipads will be 3G enabled <http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/>

------
protomyth
It would tick some iPhone developers off if these guys got faster service
because of a stunt.

------
wrath
Do I smell the start of an anti-trust suit brewing???

Assuming there's no slight of hands trickery in the demo, the performance is
very impressive. I was under the assumption that the bulk of the performance
issues on Safari were network and cpu related...

~~~
EsquireCats
Problems with this line of thinking: 1\. Anti-trust implies monopoly. No
monopoly on phones here. Plus it's Apple's store, you can't have a "monopoly"
on your own product.

2\. Apple haven't exhibited a consistent pattern of app rejections to imply
any particular competitive bias. (They host many applications from their
traditional competitors.)

3\. Point 2 is moot, as it's still not a monopoly to begin with.

If you'd like to see what real monopolistic-competitor crunching behaviour is,
then read up on the halloween documents.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_l...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_leak)

Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these
mammoths.

~~~
orangecat
_Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these
mammoths._

Microsoft indirectly funded legal attacks on Linux; Apple is seeking to
destroy Android entirely by abusing the patent system. Microsoft made it
slightly more inconvenient to run competing browsers; Apple bans them
altogether. Apple may not have the market share of that MS or IBM did, but
they certainly have the attitude.

~~~
EsquireCats
This statement is remarkably light on fact and heavy on sensationalism. Apple
have received numerous patent disputes for technologies included in the
iPhone. They hardly "threw the first punch." I also wouldn't call this an
abuse on the patent system - apple's current action is -precisely- what the
patent system is useful for. Abuse would be similar behaviour to IBM in the
80s where they would racket money from start ups threatening them with the
weight of their patent portfolio.

Also numerous browsers are available for the iPhone.

I'd really be more swayed into believing apple were this big evil company - if
the other companies weren't as bad, if not worse.

I'd say they are all a little rotten, however by far I recognise that Apple is
reasonably clean for a company that has had more than 30 years to make big
public mistakes.

------
jacquesm
It duplicates functionality the iPhone already has, does that mean they'll
reject it to be consistent or will they approve a bunch of other apps that
have been rejected for that reason ?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Well it can't be rejected for consistency because there's a bunch of browser
apps already.

~~~
mbreese
All of the existing browsers ultimately use Safari's DOM/JS engine. What would
be really interesting is if there were a Gecko or a full Opera engine based
browser. Opera mini isn't really a browser, it's a proxy, so I'm not sure this
would fall under the same category anyway.

------
drtse4
Hmm, you can guess when the app will be approved. I'd like to see some stats
on those guesses, i bet that the results will make clear that the average user
has no idea of how long the approval process is (i expect that the majority of
votes should fall in the 1-3 weeks range).

------
27182818284
What happens if Apple approves Opera Mini within 24 to 36 hours and then uses
Opera Mini as an example to direct attention away from the app store's flaws?

------
barredo
Is there a way to bypass Opera servers in Opera mini (in settings) even if it
makes your web browsing experience a bit slower?

~~~
maggit
No. Opera Mini only understands what they call OBML, which is what the Opera
Mini servers give the handsets.

Opera also produces Opera Mobile for mobile devices, which is a full-fledged
browser. This is a separate product.

------
gcb
soon in an european counrty near you: the iphone browser ballot!

And in other news: opera should leave the iphone and fix the zillion bugs on
the other platforms that lacks a decent native browser.

Posted from a nokia with Opera mini.

~~~
EsquireCats
I laughed - but there are already plenty of other web browsers on the iPhone
platform.

~~~
ugh
Different chrome but all the same engine.

------
j23tom
I wish one day without news about Apple.

