Opera Mini for iPhone submitted to Apple's App Store

Norwegian software company Opera said on Tuesday that it has submitted Opera Mini to Apple's App Store for the iPhone.

Opera announced the availability of Opera Mini for iPhone at the 2010 Mobile World Congress (MWC) last month. It remains to be seen whether or not Apple will approve the application but Opera has previously stated the App is 100% compliant with Apple's App Store policies. Hstorically Apple has always rejected applications that have duplicated the original functionality on the iPhone. However, the Californian based company has approved a number of web browsers for the iPhone recently. Mercury Web Browser is available in the App Store free of charge as is described as "the best replacement for Safari".

Apple famously rejected Google's Voice application last year. The move prompted an FCC investigation into the matter. Shortly after the FCC investigation, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple's Board of Directors.

Opera Mini for iPhone includes unlimited tabbed browsing and the ability to search the content of a Web page. Unfortunately Mini for iPhone does not include pinch to zoom functionality. According to The New York Times, this will be added in an update later this year.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Get a free .co.uk address thanks to Google, BT and PayPal [UK]

Next Story

Microsoft testing twitter-like "OfficeTalk"

66 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Andrew Lyle said,
It's going to get rejected.. Apple will always do that to products better than their own.

Yea, because as we all know, Safari beats all...so why is there a need for anything else

Andrew Lyle said,
It's going to get rejected.. Apple will always do that to products better than their own.

This is better than Safari at practically one thing: rendering large pages on slow connections (and only then if you don't care about the compression of page elements).

If you want to use iPhone-tailored websites/web apps or use very interactive or animated websites (like sites that use even remotely advanced CSS3 or JavaScript), this isn't going to do well. It also can't do proper HTTPS (since everything is proxied through Opera's servers), which means you shouldn't use it to access your bank data or anything that's sensitive.

I'm not saying it doesn't have its niche, but "better than Safari" is a tall statement.

Edited by Elliott, Mar 24 2010, 4:57am :

I smell a law suit. Opera has a large habit of crying everytime things don't go their way. They're also highly letigious.

"Apple refused to let our browser on there device, it's anti-competitive"

bluarash said,
Being an Apple user isn't about choice, it's about being "different," from the mainstream.

Well...yeah, that was the whole point of their first Mac ad 25+ years ago. From that day they've marketed themselves as the hip underdog path to freedom from the corporate big brother. Apple is irony. A herd culture borne out of wanting to free themselves from the herd. Like how one Macbook user on a Starbucks sofa spots another fondling a unibody and feels the same sort of brotherhood as when two Prius drivers catch each others' eyes at a stop light, their gazes hugging.

Let us all pray Steve Jobs does not say he hates Opera and does not sign off on this, because I am no fan of Safari on the iPone or the iPod Touch. Having Opera on both will be a blessing in disguise.

zagor said,
Opera, isn't it time that you sue Apple?

Why would they do that?

Opera does not have a history of lawsuits, and Apple has not violated any antitrust laws.

Looks like they really want to corner Apple. They even have a counter on their site: http://my.opera.com/community/countup/

Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Apple could look good if they get it in quick given the timer and all or they could deny it and who knows where things will end up. We all know already Opera aren't afraid to cry when they think they've been hard done by. For that reason alone I think it'll get through.

And on that note I'd kind of like Apple to reject given I'm sure it'll lead to &%$# hitting the fan in some way or another. I didn't agree with how Opera went about the browser ballet move with MS as I never felt MS was denying choice, but I do think Apple does deserve a kick for how its run the App store.

I'm not even necessarily referring to them controlling what can and can't pass submission...it is their store so fair game in that regard. What I don't like is them changing policy and pulling thousands of apps at the drop of a hat with no prior warning given to the developers. I certainly don't agree with companies losing revenue streams over night because Apple reneged on its prior policy decisions.

It's move like that which IMHO are setting Apple up for some trouble and perhaps Opera getting rejected would be enough of a catalyst for that.

Edited by Smigit, Mar 23 2010, 1:02pm :

Although I would like more, better, unregulated apps on the app store (me being an iPhone user), I don't think there is a problem with Apple wanting to do what they want with the App Store. The power is in the consumer. If they don't like Apple's policy then they don't have to buy an iPhone. It is really that simple.

Smigit said,
And on that note I'd kind of like Apple to reject given I'm sure it'll lead to &%$# hitting the fan in some way or another. I didn't agree with how Opera went about the browser ballet move with MS as I never felt MS was denying choice, but I do think Apple does deserve a kick for how its run the App store.

I'm not even necessarily referring to them controlling what can and can't pass submission...it is their store so fair game in that regard. What I don't like is them changing policy and pulling thousands of apps at the drop of a hat with no prior warning given to the developers. I certainly don't agree with companies losing revenue streams over night because Apple reneged on its prior policy decisions.

It's move like that which IMHO are setting Apple up for some trouble and perhaps Opera getting rejected would be enough of a catalyst for that.

What thousands of apps have being dropped due to a change of policy? I can't recall many

Smigit said,
I didn't agree with how Opera went about the browser ballet move with MS

What browser ballot move?

The ballot was Microsoft's own suggestion. Opera had nothing to do with it.

It's move like that which IMHO are setting Apple up for some trouble and perhaps Opera getting rejected would be enough of a catalyst for that.

This conspiracy theory nonsense needs to stop. All Opera wants is to get on the iPhone because there are millions of possible users there.

evo_spook said,

What thousands of apps have being dropped due to a change of policy? I can't recall many
A month or so ago they removed a few thousand apps that contained adult material, some of which had been in the store for a year or more.

PreKe said,

What browser ballot move?

The ballot was Microsoft's own suggestion. Opera had nothing to do with it.

They had everything to do with it. It was MS's response to them crying to the EU. If they hadn't kicked up a stink to begin with we likely wouldnt have the ballot.

PreKe said,

This conspiracy theory nonsense needs to stop. All Opera wants is to get on the iPhone because there are millions of possible users there.
What conspiracy theory? It's just an observation on their past dealings with MS and the fact they are being rather in Apples face with this release such as the press conference and page showing a timer since submission ect.

Shadrack said,
Although I would like more, better, unregulated apps on the app store (me being an iPhone user), I don't think there is a problem with Apple wanting to do what they want with the App Store. The power is in the consumer. If they don't like Apple's policy then they don't have to buy an iPhone. It is really that simple.

I'm all about business prerogatives, but things are a little different in the wireless market, and you know it. Like Smigit said, the problem isn't that Apple sets its own rules for the app store, it's how they'll suddenly change them. You might like the app store model when you first get your iPhone, but if Apple gradually turns it into something you don't like, you can't easily stop being an iPhone user.

The wireless model is one of contracts. Once you purchase the iPhone, you're essentially locked in for two years. If you want to 'boycott', you have to pay the full price of a new phone and swap sim cards, while your monthly payments work toward paying back at&t for subsidizing the cost of your phone. Apple gets their money, and no 'message' is sent to them.

Cancel your service? Fine. You pay the fee. Apple still gets their money, and no 'message' is sent to them. The wireless market isn't saturated yet, and there are still plenty of dumbphone users and new customers to target for future iPhone releases.

Joshie said,

I'm all about business prerogatives, but things are a little different in the wireless market, and you know it. Like Smigit said, the problem isn't that Apple sets its own rules for the app store, it's how they'll suddenly change them. You might like the app store model when you first get your iPhone, but if Apple gradually turns it into something you don't like, you can't easily stop being an iPhone user.

The wireless model is one of contracts. Once you purchase the iPhone, you're essentially locked in for two years. If you want to 'boycott', you have to pay the full price of a new phone and swap sim cards, while your monthly payments work toward paying back at&t for subsidizing the cost of your phone. Apple gets their money, and no 'message' is sent to them.

Cancel your service? Fine. You pay the fee. Apple still gets their money, and no 'message' is sent to them. The wireless market isn't saturated yet, and there are still plenty of dumbphone users and new customers to target for future iPhone releases.

Good point.

Smigit said,
They had everything to do with it. It was MS's response to them crying to the EU. If they hadn't kicked up a stink to begin with we likely wouldnt have the ballot.

Nice dodge and weave there. Opera had nothing to do with the ballot screen. It was Microsoft's own suggestion.

If Microsoft hadn't broken the law, this would never have happened.

So stop crying about the fact that Microsoft was busted for breaking the law, and stop blaming Opera for the ballot screen, because it was Microsoft's own idea.

What conspiracy theory? It's just an observation on their past dealings with MS

No it isn't. Opera never set up MS for anything. It was Microsoft who broke the damn law. Your insane conspiracy makes MS out to be some innocent little child, while the fact is that they were blatantly breaking the law for many years.

and the fact they are being rather in Apples face with this release such as the press conference and page showing a timer since submission ect.

Again, this is nonsense. Opera does not have a history of setting anyone up. They clearly are just doing PR in combination with trying to get on the iPhone.

Nice dodge and weave there. Opera had nothing to do with the ballot screen. It was Microsoft's own suggestion.


If Microsoft hadn't broken the law, this would never have happened.

So stop crying about the fact that Microsoft was busted for breaking the law, and stop blaming Opera for the ballot screen, because it was Microsoft's own idea.

What law? Where is it illegal for a company to install a program on their own operating system by default? If it's so illegal why isn't Apple being sued? Or BMW for installing their own GPS in their cars, I mean they should have asked me if I wanted a BMW or a Garmin or a Mappoint GPS.

Opera (and i think Mozilla but I could be wrong) sued Microsoft in EU courts, and Microsoft decided to make the ballot screen instead of paying the ridiculous millions of dollars a day fine.

You seriously aren't that stupid now are you?

/- Razorfold said,

What law? Where is it illegal for a company to install a program on their own operating system by default? If it's so illegal why isn't Apple being sued? Or BMW for installing their own GPS in their cars, I mean they should have asked me if I wanted a BMW or a Garmin or a Mappoint GPS.

Opera (and i think Mozilla but I could be wrong) sued Microsoft in EU courts, and Microsoft decided to make the ballot screen instead of paying the ridiculous millions of dollars a day fine.

You seriously aren't that stupid now are you?

Well if someone wanted to go after Apple, I think would fall under the Sherman Act and thanks to Microsoft and the US Gov ( tax payers) it now has many many case precedences.

/- Razorfold said,
What law? Where is it illegal for a company to install a program on their own operating system by default? If it's so illegal why isn't Apple being sued? Or BMW for installing their own GPS in their cars, I mean they should have asked me if I wanted a BMW or a Garmin or a Mappoint GPS.

Competition law. Bundling is not illegal, but it is illegal for a monopolist to abuse bundling in order to undermine competition.

Opera (and i think Mozilla but I could be wrong) sued Microsoft in EU courts, and Microsoft decided to make the ballot screen instead of paying the ridiculous millions of dollars a day fine.

Wrong. No one sued Microsoft. What happened was that the EC was asked to look into Microsoft's violations. They did, and found Microsoft guilty.

Microsoft then proposed the ballot screen to avoid fines, yes. But this is not Mozilla or Google's fault. It's Microsoft's for breaking the law in the first place.

Kierandownes said,
I don't think I'd use it, safari is just convinient. There's no way to change the default browser so I don't think I'd bother.

What? All you need do is run Opera instead of Safari, whats inconvenient about that?

_DP said,

What? All you need do is run Opera instead of Safari, whats inconvenient about that?

'Cause apps that open links (mail, sms, twitter, etc...) will always open Safari.

coth said,
Not unfortunately. Opera'a way to render the text and zooming is a way better than pinch zoom.

But safari already has tap to zoom so you aren't trading one for the other. You're ditching a browser that has both and using a browser that has only one.

Chasethebase said,
If Apple reject it I think almost all anti competitive laws will be flung at them.

Nope. Obviously not.

majortom1981 said,
Unless any of these replacements offer flash why would use another one over safari?

Opera Mini use their own server to compress the traffic so pages loads much more faster.

majortom1981 said,
Unless any of these replacements offer flash why would use another one over safari?

One of the features was mentioned in the article - the ability to search for text on a page. I'm sure there's loads more desktop-type features that could be added to a mobile web browser.

majortom1981 said,
Unless any of these replacements offer flash why would use another one over safari?

Opera mini works really well on mobile devices, its most important feature is the ability to compress data making navigation a lot more faster, and this is of extreme importance when talking about mobile devices.

Lechio said,

Opera mini works really well on mobile devices, its most important feature is the ability to compress data making navigation a lot more faster, and this is of extreme importance when talking about mobile devices.

Not to mention that it somewhat lightens network load for your wireless provider. You'd think at&t would not only encourage Apple to allow it, but would encourage users to install it.

Digitalx said,

It is chrome under the covers dude - webkit engine.

Chrome is more than just webkit though. The actual codebase that makes Chrome so fast is V8 the javascript engine.

testman said,

No they won't. Silly comment.

Well there already being inspected they can't keep denying developers the freedom to build apps in the way that's better for the average user.

Would love to see that. Opera is my primary desktop browser, so keeping it in sync with my iPhone via Opera Link would be a great addition to mobile browsing experience

Lilrichie said,
What's the betting it will be rejected?

Well it goes against the most incredibly stupid fundamental anti competitive rules ever so highly I'd imagine.

Digitalx said,

Well it goes against the most incredibly stupid fundamental anti competitive rules ever so highly I'd imagine.
Stupid?

Lilrichie said,
What's the betting it will be rejected?

using Opera's server to compress data = less bandwidth used = less profit for AT&T = reject