Why Opera Didn't Make It on the iPhone

Wow. You know, Apple really is kind of a shoddy company is many ways. But Opera really takes the cake. I’m asked frequently by the browser company’s 17 PC users (most of whom appear to live in Scandinavia) why I never write about the product, and the reason is simple. It’s irrelevant on the PC (but not, as it turns out, on mobile devices). It turns out that’s only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Opera’s many failings:

Last week a lot was made of revelations that Apple had barred the Opera browser from the iPhone. Reports explained Apple blocked the browser company Opera from distributing a mobile version of its browser, Opera Mini, to iPhone users because it competes with Apple's own Safari browser. It appeared to many Apple was unfairly restricting good applications from iPhone users - something it has been accused of doing in the past. [Um. Something it has done in the past, you mean. –Paul]

All may not be as it appears. I caught up with Tor Odland, Director of Corporate Communications at Opera, who says earlier reports overstate the situation. In fact Odland says, "Opera has not yet submitted a version of Opera Mini to Apple's App Store, but may do so in the future."

LOL. Spare me. Seriously, just spare me.

So where did the “Apple blocked Opera” stuff originate? Here, in the New York Times Blog:

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.

To be fair to von Tetzchner, there’s no direct quote here, and he most likely relaying his opinion. But I’m guessing, too, that he was forceful enough in his convictions while conveniently leaving out the most pertinent bit of the conversation … that Opera had never, in fact, tried to get its browser submitted to Apple to be released the iPhone.

All this said, based on Apple’s behavior so far, yeah, they would have shot Opera down. Obviously. That’s what they do.

Discuss this Article 27

Mum
on Nov 4, 2008
Thanks for covering this. One journalist point for Paul :) I use Opera to see whether my css or javascript fails on it. If it does I do nothing.
gorath
on Nov 4, 2008
@mum, "if it does I do nothing" That genuinely made me laugh a little! I tried the latest release of opera, and I have to say, I was was actually very impressed with it, particularly it's speed.. However, the deal breaker for me was that it was incompatible with many sites I visit.
Ocean
on Nov 4, 2008
Thanks for straightening that out. In the future, stop letting John Gruber beat you to the punch. :) Love the podcast: "Paul, you sound like a bitter Windows fan who is jealous." Leo Laporte, Windows Weekly #79
lotsamystuff
on Nov 4, 2008
"Thanks for covering this. One journalist point for Paul :)' For what? Regurgitating (with extra snark) what Gruber already told us last week? http://daringfireball.net/2008/11/opera_app_store
shark47
on Nov 4, 2008
"For what? Regurgitating (with extra snark) what Gruber already told us last week?" There's no pleasing them, Paul. It's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." :-)
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 4, 2008
Realistically, this is the real non-story but seems to be getting lots of play on the pro-Mac sites since, somehow, Opera not doing a futile step is treated as though Apple is somehow vindicated in anti-competitive behavior. Of course Opera hasn't submitted it. There's no need since the SDK's license agreement explicitly bans it in the first place. If the DID submit it, they'd only be doing so for the publicity of getting refused. They know already that there's no way it should be accepted under the current terms. By (somebody) publicizing that Opera did not officially submit it, the Mac fans blame Opera. If Opera did submit it, the Mac fans would blame Opera for doing a publicity stunt. In the mean time, everyone's discussing the minutia of the process and not discussing that Apple's blocking competition on a platform where they have absolute monopoly control. What Opera should be doing is filing an anti-trust charge against Apple in the EU over Apple's restraint of trade in the portable music player market (Remember, the iPhone is part of the iPod market and that's one where Apple clearly has a monopoly). And perhaps the little speech last week was the first salvo in doing just that.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 4, 2008
OT to Waethorn: Just sent you the reply on your question.
rickhuizinga
on Nov 4, 2008
The more important point of all this is that it has created a psychological barrier for developers wanting to create applications for the iPhone. In this case, the fear of spending a load of money to develop an app in advance of any accept/reject determination by Apple is stifling application development and innovation on the iPhone platform. This plays into the hands of competing mobile platforms, if they can ever get their act together...
adamb1000
on Nov 4, 2008
Until Opera sends in the application to Apple there should be no finger pointing at Apple. You do realize to get an app on the store you have to submit it right? You cant just say "Hey we made this cool little web browser based off the desktop version of opera" and have it instantly appear on the store.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 4, 2008
adamb1000, Since the license terms of the SDK explicity prohibit developing certain types of applications for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform, there's no need to apply since by using the SDK you've already agreed that you won't develop them. In some ways, submitting Opera (or Firefox or Chrome) would be an admission that they violated the terms of the agreement.
callayheeko
on Nov 4, 2008
@ mikegalos@msn.com, "What Opera should be doing is filing an anti-trust charge against Apple in the EU over Apple's restraint of trade in the portable music player market (Remember, the iPhone is part of the iPod market and that's one where Apple clearly has a monopoly)." Wouldn't the relevant market be limited to "portable music players capable of running a browser"? I don't see how sales of iPod Nanos, Shuffles, or Classics impact Opera.
Mum
on Nov 4, 2008
"Realistically, this is the real non-story but seems to be getting lots of play on the pro-Mac sites since, somehow, Opera not doing a futile step is treated as though Apple is somehow vindicated in anti-competitive behavior." What with the app store rejections and iPhone multitasking I can *sort of* see what they're doing at the moment. Steve Jobs actually said long ago that phones are different from computers - they need to work. You don't want some stupid app taking over your phone and then crashing in the middle of a call. And he was right - but obviously iPhone 3G, especially in its early days, was very unstable. I remember all this because I've worked with mobile phones since I was 22. Anyway, the iPhone app store policy has to loosen at some point - otherwise it'll possibly go the way of the Mac ('90's era). But then again, in 20 years time everything we're talking about now will be gone.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 4, 2008
calleyheeko Relevant Market is a very vague term that's usually the key in determining whether monopoly power is in effect. It's possible to restrict or expand a market definition to make almost any company a monopoly or prevent almost any company from being a monopoly. Since the iPod Touch is a hybrid of technology in both the classic iPod lines and the iPhone and since Apple markets the iPhone as partly the best iPod, they've established it as part of the iPod family. That's the most likely market for the courts (although Apple would likely say something like "the market should be all cell phones thus Apple has trivial impact and not monopoly"). The determination of a market for monopoly determination isn't really that tied to the specific features appropriate to the person raising the complaint. Otherwise, you end up having to have a separate court determination for every feature. For example, Microsoft was determined to have a monopoly on personal computer operating systems (Not operating systems and not PC operating systems for intel architecture systems). One of the complaints was brought about bundling Internet Explorer in Windows 98. Another complaint involved OEM licensing terms for Windows 95. If the courts worked as you suggest, if the IE complaint was heard first, then Windows 95 would not have been relevant since it did not include a browser and the monopoly determination would have only been on Windows 98. If the OEM complaint on Windows 95 was first, then the bundling of IE wouldn't be an issue since the monopoly would have been determined only on OEM versions. Instead, the overall effect on the larger market is what is used to determine monopoly power. Since iPhone is a part of the overarching music player market and since Apple treats that as one large market (no separate iTunes or iTunes Store, marketing as iPod software in iPhone as an iPod in the device, selling an iPhone without telephony as an iPod, etc) it's pretty unlikely that it could be treated as multiple markets and one ruling would be likely to involve all iPod family consumer devices and software from iPod nano to iPhone to iTunes to AppleTV. But, IANAL and just somebody who lived through DOJ vs Microsoft...
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 4, 2008
Mum The same arguments could just as easily be made for Macintosh as for iPhone. You don't want some stupid app taking over your computer and then crashing in the middle of paying your bills. That iPhone was unstable even before it had 3rd party apps just shows it wasn't tested sufficiently - a problem Apple's "secrecy is key to Steve's keynotes and keynotes are more important than testing" mindset makes inevitable in a larger ecosystem.
Mum
on Nov 4, 2008
"The same arguments could just as easily be made for Macintosh as for iPhone. You don't want some stupid app taking over your computer and then crashing in the middle of paying your bills." No they couldn't, really. Thanks to mostly Microsoft's and also Apple's past, people are used to their computers crashing all the time. With phones it's a completely different matter. Smartphones are also a somewhat different thing, although not drastically so. iPhone so far has been the fastest and the most stable smartphone I've ever, ever held in my hands. The stupidphones of the 90's were very stable of course. But the testing argument here doesn't really make sense. If Apple don't test well, then other manufacturers don't test at all, for all I know. But I'm not on AT&T, which might make a difference.
SPiotr
on Nov 4, 2008
@mikegalos Defining the relevant market may indeed be tricky However, the iPhone is still a phone. It's sold through cell phone carriers together with a monthly plan. I think it might be a little difficult to ignore all the other music playing cell phones. Even al the other music playing smart phones. Maybe one day your wish will be granted and iPhone will be THE monopoly. If you think it already is... don't tell Paul! He still hasn't recovered from the 17% US figures.
Ocean
on Nov 4, 2008
Don't get dizzy spinning. >>Since the license terms of the SDK explicity prohibit developing certain types of applications for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform, there's no need to apply since by using the SDK you've already agreed that you won't develop them.<<
johnpapola
on Nov 4, 2008
Paul is a joke, people. When it comes to Apple commentary, Paul is just a ludicrous hack. Need he be reminded that just 4 days ago he mindlessly regurgitated this Opera denial news under the inflammatory title "Apple is evil, part 227". Now, he comes back with some more lazy regurgitation of other more serious and talented bloggers like John Gruber refuting the story. But does he redact his "Apple is evil" post? Nope. Does he apologize for the wrong "slander". Nope. Best of all, he starts the story with an utterly unnecessary and unsubstantiated jab at Apple as "a shoddy company in many ways". Yeah. Right. 25 billion in the bank. Nearly 100% year-over-year growth in real, non-GAAP terms. Real shoddy, Paul. Give me a break. Paul, you are an increasingly bitter, insular Microsoft hack. Not that there's anything wrong with that, really. Rob Enderle has made a living out of smearing and distorting Apple with garbage.
callayheeko
on Nov 4, 2008
@mikegalos@msn.com I appreciate your thoughtful response. I'm not a lawyer either, but something much worse: a law student who (1) has never taken an antitrust class, and (2) is not familiar with the details of the Microsoft antitrust case, which means I know just enough to get the law completely wrong. At any rate, my point isn't related to who wins in court, but whether the antitrust angle makes practical sense. The way I think about the antitrust angle involves a connection between two markets: the monopoly market (PC operating systems) and the still-competitive market (browsers). I still think there's a significant distinction. Microsoft's bundling arrangement gave it an advantage in the Windows 98 browser market. Even if it didn't have a monopoly over the "PC operating system" market based on Windows 98 market share alone, it could have leveraged that advantage against competitors in the Windows 95 browser market. If Windows 95 market share + Windows 98 market share == monopoly over the "PC operating system" market, then Microsoft could also have leveraged that advantage against competitors in the general PC browser market. If all of those statements were true, then whether Microsoft had a monopoly over the "PC operating system" market seems like the appropriate question. On the other hand, if we swap "Microsoft" for "Apple," "Windows 98" for "iPhone," "Windows 95" for "iPod," "PC operating system" for "portable music player," we get: Apple's bundling arrangement gives it an advantage in the iPhone browser market. Even if it doesn't have a monopoly over the "portable music player" market based on iPhone market share alone, it still could leverage that advantage against competitors in the iPod browser market. If iPod market share + iPhone market share == monopoly over the "portable music player" market, then Apple could also leverage that advantage against competitors in the general portable music player browser market. If all of those statements are true, then whether Apple has a monopoly over the "portable music player" market seems like the appropriate question. The difference is that there is no "portable music player" browser market, which is why I think it's significant (from a practical, rather than legal standpoint) that iPod Classic can't run a browser (while Windows 95 could).
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 4, 2008
John, John, John. You know I've asked this many, many times, but why are you here? It just doesn't make sense. If I am fan of something, and I see it is too far gone, some random post by me isn't going to change things. I just take my eyeballs somewhere else. It really is that simple. You'll save lots of time.
johnpapola
on Nov 4, 2008
@Dip. You are dead right. Notice that my presence has diminished to the point of near non-existence? I've stopped listening to Paul's podcast and stopped coming to this site regularly, because Paul has deteriorated into a Apple-bashing hack. It's funny that his umbrage and disdain seems to grow in the precise correlation to Apple's growing success. Every so often I check it out, and sure I'll post a bit if I've got a minute. But you won't see me going back and forth on this site anymore. Paul's not worth my time anymore.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 4, 2008
callayheeko The key part you're missing is that declaration of monopoly power is over a market and not timed to the question of whether that monopoly is being abused. A market of "iPhone" would be unlikely to be considered as it is tied to a specific product and not a product segment. There is, almost certainly, a case for there being a portable digital music player market and there is also a very good case for Apple being held to have monopoly power in that market. There could be a case made for there being a "smart phone" market but that's a much harder case to make since the definition of what comprises a "smart" phone is clearly vague. Now, assuming a determination of Apple having monopoly power in the Portable Digital Music Player market, then comes the question of whether they have abused that power. I'd say there is certainly grounds for a court to examine that question. Apple has clearly both bundled their non-competitive products (Safari) with iPhone and that might be considered abuse but that's minor by comparison with their SDK terms that restrict competitors from creating or distributing technology that competes against their bundled products. They have also locked the distribution channel for 3rd party products that compete with theirs by both tying iPhone software and music to iTunes and by "bricking" customer owned products that have been modified by the customer to allow use of non-Apple approved software. Clearly they violate both the original (Pre- DOJ v Microsoft precedent) consumer harm intention of anti-trust law and the later (Post DOJ v Microsoft) theoretical harm to competitors test. Add in the additional issues of excessive licensing fees for compatibility certification, price insensitivity, inclusion of technology that does nothing but lock out competitors and there's a pretty serious set of charges waiting for a ruling.
Mum
on Nov 4, 2008
"John, John, John. You know I've asked this many, many times, but why are you here?" You might as well ask Paul why he reads Apple-related news. And Paul, why am I here? To bring some balance to the discussion.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 4, 2008
Mum, Actually, Paul's been pretty clear as to his covering most of the Apple stuff on this site. Since most users of iPod and iPhone are Windows users, he covers those products and their ecosystem products as Windows peripherals. As for covering the rest, that's a little more vague (well, maybe even a lot more)
DRWAM
on Nov 4, 2008
Yo Dipsh, I haven't finished the car deal yet, but will PM you when done in a couple weeks. MBF quoted me a price $2K LOWER THAN THE DEALER. More later since OT and the details aren't available.
Mum
on Nov 4, 2008
"Actually, Paul's been pretty clear as to his covering most of the Apple stuff on this site. Since most users of iPod and iPhone are Windows users, he covers those products and their ecosystem products as Windows peripherals." No problem with that. But if we question someone reading his blog because he doesn't like it then we might as well question anything anyone does that they don't like. Especially as Paul's reasoning on his Apple coverage is that he's bringing some sort of balance. Which is weird, seeing as how biased it is.
Waethorn
on Nov 5, 2008
"Paul is a joke, people. When it comes to Apple commentary, Paul is just a ludicrous hack." "You know I've asked this many, many times, but why are you here?" Isn't it obvious? For peddling his snake-oil, ahem, crap on Spike TV. Meanwhile, lambasting Paul. John, do you use Spike TV airtime to b*tch about their advertisers too?

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use