Earlier, we reported that Apple had rejected Opera Mini from the App Store. A New York Times blog entry claimed that Opera’s CEO and co-founder Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner said that Apple wouldn’t let them release Opera Mini for the iPhone because it competed with Mobile Safari. John Gruber, of Daring Fireball, did some researching of his own, and found out via anonymous sources who do not wish to be identified, that the situation is a little bit different.
According to these anonymous sources, Opera indeed has developed an iPhone version of Opera Mini, but they haven’t submitted it to Apple just yet, so it couldn’t have been rejected in the first place. So, concerning this specific point, we have a New York Times blogger paraphrasing from an interview he conducted with Opera’s CEO – and John Gruber’s anonymous sources. I have little reason to doubt any of the two’s good intentions, but only time will tell who’s got it right on this one.
John Gruber dove a little deeper into the possible reasons why Opera Mini would be rejected, and apparently, he didn’t know the difference between Opera Mobile and Opera Mini. Now that he does, he seems to think a possible rejection of Opera Mini might stem from its use of MicroEmulator, a pure Java implementation of J2ME in J2SE, when porting Opera Mini to Android. Android doesn’t have a full J2SE implementation, so Opera had to write their own bridge to run Java ME bytecode on Android.
The iPhone doesn’t have Java in any shape or form, so Gruber argues that “if what they’ve done for the iPhone is along the same lines – that they’ve gotten a Java ME runtime running on the iPhone – it’s clearly outside the bounds of the iPhone SDK Agreement.” Article 3.3.2 reads:
3.3.2 – An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s).
Assuming that Opera Mini was ported to the iPhone in the same way as it was ported to Android, it wouldn’t pass Apple’s iPhone rules. Opera Mini will need to use the native iPhone APIs in order to be accepted into the App Store.
And then Apple could reject it on some other ground.
HTML is interpreted code (let alone JS…), so no need to take the Java excuse.
But that clause seems more than abusive to me.
HTML is a markup language, not a programming language.
Where does the java idea come in. I mean they could very well have taken their Opera Mobile code and ported it to the iPhone, since native C++ will run on the iPhone. This Gruber guy is just accusing the NYTimes of faking an interview with Opera CEO, wtf??? I mean, if i were to develop an app for the iPhone, i woudln’t even consider Java, i don’t see why the Opera team would either. A port of Opera mobile won’t be hard, and with my iPhone programming experience so far, it wouldn’t surprise me if the full pc Opera version could be ported, it sure has the power!
I’m sure Opera on the iPhone is more of a ‘can it be done’ exercise for the developers than anything serious considering Apple’s SDK terms are draconian.
Why anyone would sink resources into developing for that device is beyond me, unless all you want to do is make games or other trivial time killers.
It is obviously not the platform for serious applications. Apple wants to have exclusive rights on making the killer applications and you should go work on another jewel quest clone.
Its the most uninspiring platform (from a development perspective) that I have seen.
My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers, is that Opera has developed an iPhone version of Opera Mini — but they haven’t even submitted it to Apple, let alone had it be rejected.
I do not trust unnamed sources on the Internet.
Until there’s evidence on either side of the story, this is just another unsubstantiated rumor.
You can’t really trust anyone in internet. People talk bullshit all the time. Specially journalists, which most of the time put their own missinterpretations in other’s people mouths.
…unless / until you can find substantiation for their claims. And in this case, the claim is not just unverifi<u>ed</u>, it’s unverifiable.
Edited 2008-11-02 20:28 UTC
Especially when the “unnamed source” is quoted by a guy like john gruber.
Well, Gruber is, of course, a Mac fanboy, but he’s not as bad as some others. He’s fully capable of criticising Apple when the company deserves it.
So, that’s why I think it’s difficult to pick a side here based on reputation alone. The “unnamed sources” bit is of course a bit worrying, but then again, it won’t be the first time that a blogger/journalist misquotes an interviewee.
Grubber has this thing for calling out bullshit from other writers, so i kind of doubt he’s just make it up himself. he has real contacts at Apple where he likely got this information from.
Indeed, Gruber calls out people for wrong reports – http://daringfireball.net/2008/10/translation_duncan_riley – if he wasn’t confident, and got proven wrong, he’d be in for a massive backlash.
I guess reading comprehension isn’t his (and many others, for that matter) strong suite though since NOWHERE in the NY Times article does anyone say that Opera has submitted it to Apple and/or that it was rejected.
The article that originally started all this said
Nowhere does it say or even imply that Apple rejected the application from the iPhone store. Apple has shown a predisposition to not allow apps that directly compete with the core Apple applications.
Gruber is a rabid Apple fanboy who jumps to the defense of Apple anytime anyone puts Apple in a critical light. He is a good writer, but a far cry from unbiased. Instead of taking a dispassionate approach to the criticism he attempts to find a way to discredit it. In this case he is using a defense against a charge never made.
It is possible Opera did something outside of the allowed SDK and would get rejected out of hand, It is also possible that Opera never submitted it based on the assumption it would get rejected. In reality all we have is a single paragraph in a mch larger interview that Gruber chose to take offense to.
Edited 2008-11-02 20:20 UTC
Funny, no one seemed to have any issues jumping on the anti-Apple bandwagon just based off of the same paragraph in said article. The assumption was that the application was submitted and rejected, the article did not specify either way, but people chose to assume that Apple was up to something and have been spreading this throughout the net as evidence that Apple is a bully. Sure there is precedence here, no one is disputing that fact that Apple is a bully when they want to be, what is in this dispute is this particular incident. If in-fact Opera never submitted the application because they knew they were in violation of Apple’s SDK agreement then there is no need to blame Apple is there. However its much more entertaining to curse out Apple than it is to verify facts, no we’d rather blow an unverified one-liner in an article out of proportion.
This guy is basically saying that the event never happened and given his reputation I’m bound to believe him rather than believe a mob with pitch forks that jumped on the bandwagon. That is no to say that their isn’t a basis for the hysteria. Apple did reject podcaster but based off reports for the 2.2 update of the iPhone then yes there is s conflict there since the update is supposed to include what podcaster did by default in the ipod application. Its better to reject the app now than for someone to scream hijincks when an update comes along with your apps features included by default. We don’t need a repeat of the whole dashboard thing.
You know I reread the blog entry by Gruber and I still must be missing something. Where did he make any effort to contact either the original author or the Opera executive? Surely if he wants to set the record straight he should have at least put some effort into getting clarification as to what was said.
But no, evidently pointing out that an author did not base his rant on anything but second hand opinion is jumping on the anti-apple bandwagon. I am not anti-apple though. Honestly I do not give a flying frak about Apple or Opera. My point is that Gruber is accusing misinformation based on details not supported by the statement in the article. If the blogosphere want to infer more than is said than counter those statements. Seek clarity, don’t whine that unnamed contacts disagreed with some assumptions made by 3d parties to the interview.