Opera Submits Browser App…But Who Cares?

40 Comments

I don’t use any browser on my iPhone (s aapl) other than Mobile Safari. And, unless you have a jailbroken iPhone, neither do you.

That’s because Apple’s webkit-powered Mobile Safari provides the browser engine for all the iPhone’s various windows onto the Interweb. So, whether you’re viewing a webpage from inside Tweetie 2, Instapaper or any one of the multitude of apps that allow for in-app web browsing, you’re using Mobile Safari.

Back in early February at the Mobile World Congress, Opera showed off an iPhone version of their mobile browser, Opera Mini, to a select group of reporters and tech-pundits. That left me a little confused; how could they produce a real browser, built from the ground-up, using its own in-house rendering engine, without breaking the rules?

You see, Apple has a strict rule that native applications are not permitted to reproduce the functionality offered by the iPhone out-of-the-box. That’s why you don’t see a third-party Camera app that doesn’t also offer some kind of additional “unique” functionality you wouldn’t get by simply using Apple’s own Camera software. The same goes for email applications, phone applications, iPod-like applications… you get the idea. Anything you can think of that seems similar to an Apple-made app likely is considered just different enough to be approved.

Opera’s Partner Manager Phillip Grønvold told Wired;

There are two reasons why we are confident that Opera Mini will met [sic] the requirements of the App Store…

One, our compression technology imposes limitations on what the browser can do — Opera doesn’t render rich, content-heavy documents like Safari does.

Two, Opera Mini does not actually render HTML on the device, it uses a custom binary representation of the website. We believe these technical differences make Opera Mini sufficiently different to Safari to be made available on the App Store.

So, let’s get this straight; the Opera Mini web browser doesn’t actually render HTML? Web pages are converted from HTML into some other markup (compatible only with Opera Mini) and then the ‘browser’ delivers a sub-par browsing experience? Presumably that’s what Grønvold means when he says Opera Mini ‘…doesn’t render rich, content-heavy documents’. It renders something less than you’d get normally. But, according to Wired’s Michael Conroy, it is fast. So, I guess that’s something. But… it’s something less than you’d normally get. It’s just a thought, but, wasn’t that the problem with phones before the iPhone? They delivered less than the best? I’m just saying…

With this in mind, the question shouldn’t really be “will Apple approve it” but rather, should we care about it in the first place?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never considered Mobile Safari unacceptably slow. My Internet connection has sometimes been slow, but that’s not the fault of Mobile Safari — which dutifully renders what it can, when it can. And you know, even when my throughput is a bit meager, I’d rather wait the additional seconds for the full-quality I’ve come to expect from Mobile Safari. Otherwise, what’s the point in owning an iPhone, if I’m only going to use apps that deliver pre-iPhone results?

And, while I’m on the subject of connectivity; in areas where my coverage is very limited and my iPhone can barely hold on to a simple GPRS signal, I simply don’t bother surfing the web. It’s an exercise in frustration. A hyper-optimised, super-fast alternative browser might seem like an attractive solution to someone who often finds themselves with limited throughput, but really, wouldn’t most people just wait until they get a stronger signal? Or, even better, access to a Wi-Fi network?

I know I haven’t tried it yet, I’m going by what Grønvold showed-off at the MWC —  but I just don’t see that it offers much in the way of utility and quality. Fart apps and Bikini apps also don’t offer much in the way of utility and quality… but look at what’s happening to them…

So, will Apple approve Opera Mini? I doubt it. It doesn’t matter that it renders web pages in some special way, it’s still a browser.

That won’t stop the wider tech press turning this into something it’s not. If it is approved, there’ll be talk of how it signifies this or indicates that and someone will claim this in some way ‘proves’ Apple and its iPhone are losing their sparkle… Walt Mosspuppet (the only technology journalist in the world) has this to say on the (unlikely) possibility of Apple approving Opera Mini;

…it would be great if their app makes it onto the store. After all, there are all sorts of big bets I win once I can show evidence that Hell’s frozen over, and Apple allowing another browser on the iPhone might just do it.

If (and when) Opera Mini doesn’t get approved, Apple will be criticized for… well, all the usual. Just fill in the blanks yourself, you know the words to this song by now. Ultimately, some kind of drama will be invented. It always is.

Do you want a different browser on the iPhone? And if you do, is Opera Mini the replacement you’ve been waiting for? Why? For goodness’ sake, why! Get sharing in the comments below.

40 Comments

Steve

I love articles that make the author look like a complete fool once the adoption rates start rolling in.

Sweet, sweet schadenfreude…

Codegazer

It sounds like this article is coming from a hypnotized noob who religiously appreciates any crappy software that comes from apple (offcourse this is the appleblog). I am sure if apple comes up with toilet tissue tomorrow this writer will definitely go for it, just bcos it’s Apple. Respect opera mini for the speed, it kicks safari’s ass in and out.

tobylane

For the purpose of this argument I shall assume the only benefit of Opera is speed (not true, I use both all the time, Opera is best on desktop too).

Everyone is constantly saying we need or are getting faster and faster internet. I’m sold 8, get 5.5, Youtube can be 1.5, but really.. the normal we downloads are 400kb/s, like two years ago. So, the phone network. No idea how fast it is, I’m not even in the US. There, you do need faster, you actually see improvements in normal browsing, not just speedtests. So how is this not a clear cut obvious issue, it’s an elephant through a house door, not a jumbo jet between America and Europe. Assuming it gets through, this will make a massive difference. Those numbers are true, any reason to believe they won’t work on the iPhone?

Neal

The fact that you can browse back through your prev webpages without reloading is a simple solution which I can’t understand apple left out of a bloated and slow safari, roll on opera is all I can say!! All this reloading is just unecessary….and it’s the only thing that made my n95 more usuable for web surfing during my commute to work in the mornings…. Now it’s just painfull…..counting the days to opera finally appearing, I’d even consider jailbreaking if it doesn’t get approval and is made available….

the_0ne

I don’t understand where people are getting the idea that there are no other iPhone browsers in the app store. Have you looked around? I have 2 on my phone alone and I think I got those 2 from a site that listed 10 of them. I have the Alternate Web Browser and one called VanillaSurf.

I DO NOT have my iPhone jailbroken or hacked in any way. Just go to the app store, there are plenty of “alternate” browsers.

So, why would Apple reject Opera Mini?

the_0ne

Yes Safari’s Webkit does provide the browser engine for all the iPhone’s various windows onto the Interweb, but when I am just regularly browsing, I try NOT to use Safari. It’s extremely slow and that refreshing every darn tab I go to, that’s ridiculous.

I also try NOT to use the in-app browsers, they are extremely slow and half the time end up freezing the app. I’d rather copy/paste the url and go to Alternate Web Browser.

I use the Alternate Web Browser and it’s great. When I click “Open in New Tab” and then close that tab and go back, say for instance to my google reader tab, it doesn’t refresh. Safari does 98% of the time. Really annoying to have to wait for the tab to come up AGAIN, even though it was where I wanted it when I left the tab.

I will definitely try out Opera Mini when it comes out. And will definitely try out Firefox for that matter (if it ever comes out).

Matt

Besides all this – “So, will Apple approve Opera Mini? I doubt it. It doesn’t matter that it renders web pages in some special way, it’s still a browser.” – are you saying that browsers other than Safari aren’t allowed on the App Store? So Mercury Web Browser and Perfect Browser 3 and iSurf Browser and all the others don’t actually exist??? Yes, they’re all WebKit, but they’re still browsers that aren’t Safari.

One word – research!

Karl

Fast Browsing via Proxy is definitiv important! Safari Mobil is very slow on slow Internet connections. Not a fault of the browser?

Hey Opera mobile loads much much faster even on slow connections and that IS important!

Safari mobile also does a very bad zooming. You get a horizontal scroll if you zoom out Text. That’s very bad! Opera Mobil does it better (on WindowsMobile maybe also on iPhone).

I hope Opera mobile on iPhone is comming!

Ronald Bardalez

To me, Mobile Safari has the worst UI design from Apple’s apps. No one understand what the bottom button does intuitively. I’m all for Opera mini.

George

Imagine all the worlds iphone internet traffic proxied through opera-mini’s servers. pfft.

Char

um, a few problems with that idea.

1. not everyone would switch instantly

2. Opera already does this for basically every other phone out there

3. don’t you think they thought of that before submitting the app? (the app was ready a while ago, they were just prepping their servers)

Shane

What honestly surprises me above all else is that when microsoft shipped windows with internet explorer pre-installed, everybody threw up such a fuss about how microsoft were trying to “restrict” the market.

But when apple does it, it’s makes good business sense?

Okay, I respect that it is easier to control certain aspects of the security model and that web browsers are notorious for been insecure, but good OS controls should over come many of these.

The argument that multiple apps doing the same thing (web browsing & email in particular) would confuse the users. To be quite frank, if your confused by which app does what then you probably don’t deserve to be using the iphone in the first place (sorry, but that’s how it is).

No one is forcing people to download these apps, but they should still be available, so that the user can find the experience that best meets there needs.

Apples restrictions on “duplicate functionality” is a farce. How many note apps are available? It is simply apples way to maintain it’s monopoly and further “encourage” users into a apple defined experience.

Personally, I love the iphone and I love my mac book pro, but apple really needs to get over it self fast and stop treating people like idiots who need hand holding at every turn.

It’s good to have the browser built in, to have a email client pre-installed, but let the user’s have the opportunity to decide if they want to stick with it or not.

Michael

Actually there’s a big difference the you and most people seem to not understand when comparing what Microsoft did with IE. Apple never told or promised developers that the iPhone was an open development environment. They clearly laid out limitations on what was free to do on their platform.

Microsoft provided and encouraged developers to do whatever they wanted in Windows (as does Apple in Mac OS X), however in areas where Microsoft wanted to develop their own versions, they used back-handed tricks and unfair advantages to make sure their products always came out on top.

eidetical

This article is the straw that has just broken the proverbial camel’s back – I just unsubscribed from the RSS feed. I should have expected it given the name of the site IS the theAppleBlog, but the amount of childish fanboy behaviour exhibited in virtually every article here is just unbelievably bad… especially this article.

Safari has never been “unacceptably” slow but of course it could be faster, and WHO doesn’t want faster??? Also, “full-quality” from Safari… Oh wait, what are all these boxes with a blue logo piece?

Randy

I sure hope this guy doesn’t get paid to write this garbage. Despite what one may or may not think about this Opera app, this article expresses the kind of reasoning I’d expect to overhear in a fifth grade bathroom (if it was in a town with a really bad school system).

halyein

Firefox anyone? As far as I’m concerned, any browser that doesn’t have adblocking capabilities is not good enough.

David Santos

You do realize that Opera HAS (and has had for a while now) adblocking capabilities, right?

And just for clarification, from a technical standpoint, Firefox doesn’t. It has the capability to accept extensions, and one of them does adblocking.

Jeffrey Miller

I don’t really care about having Opera for my iPod Touch, but it should be available for those who actually want it. Let the marketplace decide – though the marketplace has pretty much decided regarding Opera.

Derek

I can’t believe you pressed "publish" on this one. I’m an Apple user and huge fan of the products that come out of Cupertino, but this article reeks of fanboy narcissism that Apple users are often mocked about. You could have shortened this article by stating the following:

I am an Apple fanboy, all else mean nothing.
Webkit is baked into any application offered through the App Store because it is in the iPhone SDK.
I am an Apple fanboy, all else mean nothing.
Apple doesn’t like being challenged and enjoys dictating what can or can not be offered through the App Store.
I am an Apple fanboy, all else mean nothing.
Webkit does a great job of rendering web pages but your carriers network can affect performance / load times.
I am an Apple fanboy, all else mean nothing.
I don’t really care if Opera is offering a browser which obviously loads content faster than Mobile Safari. Who really cares anyway? They’re not even loading HTML pages… They want to load freak’n "images" for gods sake.
I am an Apple fanboy, all else mean nothing.

I believe I finally have my reason to unsubscribe from this blog.

Mike

This article is total garbage – I expect this type of content from tweens and ‘l33t gamerz’. Very disappointing…

HereWeGoAgain

I use an RSS reader which uses the Google proxy service to load docs faster. So, personally I have no need for Opera. But, I hope it make it to the App Store because diversity is what it’s all about… or should be, anyway.

nacho

I do care, and many other people too. Why? because Opera has always been one step ahead every other browser, know what? Safari didn’t invent “Top Sites”, Opera did invent “Speed dial”, and tab-browsing…
I’m looking forward to Opera mini, as this guys have always made a great job and I would like to have a browser on my iPod Touch that doesn’t hang when I’m trying to add a new bookmark

danfoy

This is such a whingey, content-less, fanboy post. If I wanted to read this sort of drivel then I’d go to a gaming forum.

danfoy

Also, in regards to George’s post, I was a very happy user of Opera Mini on my old nokia symbian phone – it was so completely ahead of the built-in nokia browser that it made the nokia browser completely unusable after you realised how much better opera mini was.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ll probably never use opera mini on my iphone, but anyone that can write an article this charged about something that hasn’t even been released is an idiot, and I resent having it pushed through my feed reader

HereWeGoAgain

Next time you don’t like an article or it upsets you so much, why not just try skipping it?

danfoy

This is generally what i do, but there comes a point where a site’s content becomes so value-less that reading it becomes a chore and it becomes easier to just unsubscribe.

I’d rather not do that because TAB sometimes has good, interesting articles, from authors that can write. There are numerous occasions during the last couple of months that I’ve had my cursor over the unsubscribe button, but have always thought ‘no, the content will get better and I might miss out on something interesting’, but sadly it appears that this is not the case. I don’t usually write in with these kinds of comments, knowing that the authors aren’t likely to care about their readership, but judging by the comments above and below, it would appear that a large chunk of the readership isn’t the kind of childish apple fanboy that it is treated as.

cory2107

Well, what I can’t figure out is why Opera thinks they have a chance with Opera Mini on the iPhone. Everybody knows that Mobile Safari is FAR superior, so why are they even trying?

Char

actually, safari ISN’T superiour.

the picture quality is slightly better in safari, but you’re looking for speed (which Opera provides, and quite well I might add), not picture quality when your browsing with your phone.

toms

Sarafi FAR superior means epic browser fail?
opera seems to be the best browser for mobiles…deal with it

George

I for one look forward to this. I don’t browse the web on my iPhone specifically because it’s so slow. It shouldn’t be, the network in my area is consistently putting out near 2 mbps, but it definitely takes Safari a long time to download and render a page. If I can do that 5 times faster, then hell yeah, I’ll be using it.

“So, let’s get this straight; the Opera Mini web browser doesn’t actually render HTML? Web pages are converted from HTML into some other markup (compatible only with Opera Mini) and then the ‘browser’ delivers a sub-par browsing experience?”

Why should it need to render straight HTML? You’re not writing the HTML locally, so it’s unnecessary. The server is consuming it and sending out a binary, which is what most people want. I don’t get where you’re assuming you’ll have a “sub-par” experience. JavaScript and images still work… you’re only missing Flash, which hey Safari doesn’t support either.

People may not care about Opera on the desktop, but Opera Mini is quite successful.

Andrew

Gruber does a great job explaining Opera Mini: http://daringfireball.net/2008/11/opera_app_store

Taken from his article:

“In a nut, it works like this: You request a URL in Opera Mini. Opera Mini makes the request to a proxy server run by Opera. Opera’s proxy server connects to the web server hosting the requested URL, and renders the page into an image. This image is then transmitted (in a proprietary format called OBML — Opera Binary Markup Language) to the Opera Mini client. Opera Mini displays the rendered image on screen. This may sound convoluted, but apparently the result is very effective — it’s faster to transmit, because only OBML (a compressed binary format) is transmitted to the mobile device over the phone network, and far faster to render on slow mobile processors.”

Seems like a pretty good idea for earlier iPhones or people with spotty connections.

Char

it not only works well for phones, it also works well for top of the line computers.

Cold Water

Wow, Opera’s got the kind of cynicism I haven’t seen since Apple, circa 2000.

Meanwhile, Apple’s got the kind of hubris I haven’t seen since Microsoft, 2000.

Argetlam

It offers as you yourself comment, a way to surf the web without it being a exercise in frustration in areas with poor reception. Why would you wanna wait until you have better reception? What if you are to stay at this place with poor reception for a while? What if youre paying for data download, this will cost alot less.

Clearly having a option where server side does the heavy lifting in bandwith and computationial power is a good thing.

Its a innovative app, and having more stuff done in “the cloud” not relying so much on awesome power and bandwidth on the user side might very well prove to be the way of the future.

Most importantly, i hope Apple will give us the freedom of choice and silence some of the critics, if they deny this app, they deserve to be critised for it.

Brad

This article is kind of garbage. There’s a lot of room for another browser on the iPhone.

“…and then the ‘browser’ delivers a sub-par browsing experience?”

Opera’s server-side compression technology is great for times when bandwidth is limited. Having full web pages is great at times, but to be honest, at least in my case, 95% of my internet browsing on my iPhone is reading text. Having something that will give me what I’m looking for, while rendering it quicker AND using less data? That’s exactly what I want when I’m mobile.

Also, the iPhone already delivers a sub-par browsing experience. The phone isn’t a good fit for many pages without a lot of scrolling (unless they’re specific sites designed for the iPhone), and it doesn’t do Flash. Argue all you want, but while the iPhone certainly has one of the best mobile browsers ever, it still doesn’t hold a candle to a desktop browsing experience.

Lastly, Mobile Safari can choke on Javascript, and there’s a chance that Opera Mini may outperform it. So that would be great for someone like me who uses some websites with extensive javascript.

“So, will Apple approve Opera Mini? I doubt it. It doesn’t matter that it renders web pages in some special way, it’s still a browser.”

And cheese is cheese. There are some very fundamental mechanical differences that make it very different from Mobile Safari. Funny how there are still camera apps, still music apps, and plenty of other applications that expand on the iPhone’s features. If Opera Mini doesn’t get approved, then there’s good reason for more clamoring about Apple’s application approval process.

“Fart apps and Bikini apps also don’t offer much in the way of utility and quality… but look at what’s happening to them…”

You’re comparing a major company’s web-browsing application that contains some actual valid improvements over the current default browser on the iPhone to a soundboard and picture gallery? This must be a troll…

Really, this article is horribly written. It’s complete editorial with so few facts I question of the author even knows anything about what they’re writing. I hope this isn’t an indication of what we can expect from TAB.

Why don’t you compare the two applications, share the features and merits of each, and then give your opinion on why one is unneeded instead of omitting facts and just trying to ram an opinion through.

MX

It’s all about speed. Thanks to AT&T’s 3G coverage, not every iphone gets decent connection speed. Safari, which renders everything, is just too much. Most of the time when we use phone to browse the internet, we are looking for some particular information on the web. We don’t really care about the “full HTML experience”. It’s all about getting the right information in a small amount of time. Opera does just that. Besides, it’s always good to have competition.

Maybe you don’t care about Opera on iPhone, but I am pretty sure a lot of people do. And I mean a lot.

Char

I agree 100% with MX

its the same reason why people use Opera regularly, because its faster (yes, opera 10.50 for the computer is the fastest web browser out there, as it has the fastest java engine and it can automatically compress data when your connection is slow so that the data gets too you faster).

remember, not only is Opera’s browser faster, but it is physically sending you less data, and thereby meaning you need a smaller data plan in order to get the same amount of data (in Opera on the computer I’ve seen up to 400x compression, although it usually sits around 10-20x for me when I need it)

Comments are closed.