What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
95 Comments
- Dalhectar, on 11/02/2008, -7/+52FTA:
"My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers"
Sounds like internet RUMOR to me! - autoy, on 11/02/2008, -13/+51Gruber is the only one doing his homework. Props.
- WinGeek, on 11/02/2008, -6/+41This article is just more speculation. Where are the facts?
- rimantas, on 11/02/2008, -3/+31Did you read the article at all?
- cassaffousth, on 11/02/2008, -5/+31"A little bird told me that Opera Mini was never submitted", an then lists reasons why Opera Mini would have been rejected. Lame.
- Echomote, on 11/02/2008, -4/+19I still want it. Now.
- scarwars, on 11/02/2008, -0/+10S60 a browser?!?!
get back to gizmodo you wannabe techie - TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/02/2008, -0/+10Since when has Adobe had Flash rejected? I've seen nothing that indicates they've formally submitted it and Apple said no.
- Dalhectar, on 11/02/2008, -1/+11http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opera-sin ...
"Mr. von Tetzchner said that Opera’s engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won’t let the company release it because it competes with Apple’s own Safari browser."
If Opera's president goes on record and says he has a version of Opera working for the iPhone, that's better than internet rumor territory. The reference to java is FUD. If Opera comes out publically and says they have a version, then only another quotable source should be used to counter it. Not "I heard from my best friend who I can't name to protect his privacy".
Placing an unnamed source from a blog on equal level to a NYT article interviewing a software development companys CEO doesn't seem smart to me. - inactive, on 11/02/2008, -3/+12I don't own an iPhone but I dunno why someone would prefer Opera over Safari in the iPhone. Competition doesn't hurt tho (the consumer)...
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -1/+9Same here. I don't need permission from T-Mobile to install it either.
- BrendanSheehan, on 11/02/2008, -2/+9Gruber is not a rumor kind of guy, and he also knows people at Apple too. I'm guessing he actually ask he Apple guys, not his Opera guys.
- niemassacre, on 11/02/2008, -4/+10Daring Fireball is consistently one of the best-written, best-researched and most comprehensible blogs out there. Kudos again to Gruber for his reporting.
- Dalhectar, on 11/02/2008, -4/+8I've seen this journalism before...
I heard from an unnamed source that there are WMDs in Iraq.
Can we go to war now?
Oh... we did.. and used unnamed sources as the basis of intelligence? - msheppard, on 11/02/2008, -0/+4Don't tell me Opra's on another diet? Sheesh.
- mannypdesign, on 11/02/2008, -1/+4The facts? People believed the browser was rejected without facts.
Nobody cares for truth--just what they want to believe, apparently. - MrViklund, on 11/02/2008, -2/+5So why was it reported like it was submitted?
Who wrote the first article??? I want to see some heads roll here! - kraetos, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3> And trying to justify Apple's actions of running an anti-competitive market (twice!) is even more reflective of how much Gruber is an Apple fanboy.
Uh, what? Gruber has been extremely critical of the NDA. Every time he explains anything NDA-related, he usually ends with, "regardless, this NDA situation is really ***** up and Apple needs to lift it now." - kenshin128, on 11/02/2008, -1/+4Lets say that Opera Software did submit Opera Mini to the iPhone, we all know Apple is going to reject it.
- abrenna, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3Opera Mini is available both as a Java and as a C++ application.
I interviewd Christen Krogh, the Chief Developer Officer at Opera Software about this earlier this week.
He confirmed that they have created it for the iPhone, and he said that: "Opera Mini would be perfect for the iPhone". His reasoning is that the bandwith-effectiveness would benefit users on expensive mobile datanetworks.
The story is here (in Norwegian only, sorry):
http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=792442 - haonanzhang, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3First off all, the entire story was based on Saul Hansell's paraphrasing of Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner. It was not a direct quote, the NYTimes author could have interpreted his comments wrong (aka lost in translation). But I have a feeling it's the general incompetency of Saul Hansell. He's the tech blog writer for the Times (he should have some tech cred), yet he's never even downloaded Opera or used it until AFTER the interview. That is second rate reporting and background research and especially disappointing given that it's the NYTimes. (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opera-sin ...
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -2/+4so from your talk i would think you dont own iPhone, and you never tryed opera mini otherwise you would know...
so what the ***** are you commenting for.... - inactive, on 11/02/2008, -3/+5well opera as mobile browser is the top in the world, so i dont think they are desperate...
and apple is being ***** for sure, but smart ***** ;) - l800LEMMINGS, on 11/02/2008, -9/+11although, had it been submitted it would have been rejected, adobe made their own app to make the iphone flash capable and qik came out with a video recording application both are still awaiting aproval for over a month. Apple is trying hard enough as it is to build up the safari market share they aren't going to let go of the 1 device that its mandatory on.
- ericdano, on 11/02/2008, -1/+3I will not read articles that do not use proper English in the title. "Apple iPhone don't need Opera Mini". What the hell. Gangsta title........
- mannypdesign, on 11/02/2008, -1/+3So baseless speculation is worse than baseless accusation?
- MacHarborGuy, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2don't forget that Loki and Bartelby turned on eachother and neither one got into Heaven. naganooch
- MWeather, on 11/02/2008, -1/+3Then why are people buying iPhones? Other than making calls, running apps is about all it does.
- phoomp, on 11/02/2008, -2/+4Irrelevant. Submitted or not, given Apple's other recent decisions to not grant App Store admission because the apps in question duplicate existing functionality, it's unlikely that Apple would grant admission to another browser.
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -1/+3Insert unnecessarily hateful disagreeing post with lack of counterpoint here.
NERD WARS! - frieddonuts, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2I got a good laugh out of that article's grammar. Sounded like Sarah Palin started writing tech articles.
- mrsteveman1, on 11/02/2008, -2/+4Yea because Apple is more worried about people using safari than buying the ***** device in the first place.
Yea.... - plainOldFool, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2I intentionally an app to Apple Store? Is that bad?
- samimnot, on 11/02/2008, -1/+3LMAO....pretty much what I expected from the Apple Haters.
Instead of admitting they naively believed some BS story...
They just digg me down ;-)
Not for a minute, did I think they would MAN UP...and apologize for their wrong comments. - Zippo, on 11/02/2008, -3/+5Way to troll the fanboys... good to see this wasn't true.
- aadsm, on 11/02/2008, -3/+5Who said it was submitted? Certainly not someone from Opera.
The guy doesn't link to the article he refers to.
The quote that started it all:
"Mr. von Tetzchner said that Opera’s engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won’t let the company release it because it competes with Apple’s own Safari browser."
I fail to see the rejection claim, he's obviously talking about the terms of use. - rft3rd, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Lol this is true, then we find out that Steve Jobs is really Alanis Morrisette and Bill Gates is pregnant with with the Messiah...
- HigherLogic, on 11/02/2008, -1/+2Actually, when it comes to the mobile market, Opera has a majority market share. They have both Opera Mobile and Mini, are on the Wii, and a number of companies use their browser for handheld devices and other solutions.
What I really want is Opera Mobile on my iPhone. The Safari browser is completely lacking. - HigherLogic, on 11/02/2008, -2/+3Because it syncs up nicely with my desktop browser so I have access to my feeds, notes, history, bookmarks, and passwords. It also has better features built-in (like the ability to turn off images).
- rockus, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1Hmmm...this reminded me of 1984 where people and events ceases to exist. No offense to Apple, but I just finished reading 1984.
- lordpookdai, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1I truly do hope the writer is foreign because the first two paragraphs of that article are almost entirely illegible.
- scarwars, on 11/02/2008, -1/+2Just because you don't know how to use it doesn't mean it's crap.
- freshyill, on 11/02/2008, -1/+2Yeah, sometimes I hope for things to be true, even though the facts indicate otherwise.
- itsontheway, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1Gruber has been an apologist for a while. I have been a subcriber to DF for years, and as soon as the Iphone came out, he started to make apologies for Apple´s boneheaded decisions, always citing the SDK agreement or the non disclosure agreement or whatever. Sure, he tries to act like he is objective but, really, his inclination towards the Iphone, in particular, is pretty obvious.
As far as me misunderstanding the term: No.
I have several macs as I work in the film industry, and I am what you would call the Apple faithful. However, I will not apologize for idiotic decisions by Apple. You guys who argue in favor of Apple like to cite stuff like, well, ¨they knew what they were in for, ¨ or ¨if you dont like the platform, go develop for android.¨ And thats all fine and well. But it is pure Apple rhetoric, make no mistake.
Apple is worse than Microsoft in this respect, but they get free cover because of all the Apple faithful making apologies for them. Yes, he is an apologist.
Let me ask you a question: Even if the App hasnt been submitted or ever will, what good reason would there be fore denying it?
Let me guess your response: ¨well, it was in the agreement¨ or ¨Apple only rejected it because of a security risk. They wont let a java interpreter on the iphone because of the security¨ or ¨Developers knew this, upfront, when they got the SDK¨ or ¨Apple wants to make sure its secure¨ or ¨If you dont like it, there are other, open platforms out there.¨
Valid points, but maybe I am just from the school of, its my device, why don´t you just let me run whatever I damn well please on it. If I wanted a locked down piece of junk, I would have got something from verizon. Why can´t people just admit that Apple is a company that is only concerned with its dominance through money, products, and ideology. They can be as evil as Microsoft or Google, but they have all these people making apologies for their decisions as if they are not trying to install total hegemony. They act like Apple isnt bad.
Why the heck does Apple have to be a gatekeeper ... oh, yeah, money. - rompom7, on 11/02/2008, -5/+6Gruber, the worlds biggest Apple apologist.
It doesn't matter that Opera Mini was never submitted for the App Store. The point is it would _never_ pass Apple's approval because it competes directly with Safari. And trying to justify Apple's actions of running an anti-competitive market (twice!) is even more reflective of how much Gruber is an Apple fanboy.
Oh, btw. I'm not an Apple hater or Microsoft fanboy. I'm just calling it how I see it. - Morghin, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Seems it's neither, just really bad phrasing in the article: http://daringfireball.net/2008/11/opera_app_store
- moppsy, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Cooliris and 1Password are both browsers that are not Safari.
They are both in the App Store. - dyranios2, on 11/02/2008, -1/+2uhh it doesn't matter really it would be rejected anyway if it was the terms and conditions alone tell us this
- Raian, on 11/02/2008, -1/+2I know how to use it and it is crap
- MWeather, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1"How is what Apple is doing ok yet Microsoft got nailed on an antitrust suit?"
Apple isn't a monopoly. Monopolies have to live by a different set of rules. -
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is