I’ve done some digging on this “Opera Mini was rejected from the App Store” story, and the truth appears to be very different than what has been reported and assumed.

It all started with this paragraph from Saul Hansell on the NY Times Bits weblog, regarding Opera CEO Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner:

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.

Note, though, that this is not a quote from von Tetzchner — he’s being paraphrased by Hansell.

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.

One thing I hadn’t realized before is that Opera has two different mobile browsers: Opera Mini and Opera Mobile. Opera Mobile is pretty much a traditional, regular web browser. It’s Opera, but stripped down and optimized for mobile platforms. Opera Mini, though, is something else. Rather than a web browser that interacts with web sites directly, Opera Mini goes through proxy servers run by Opera.

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.

It is Opera Mini, not Opera Mobile, that Hansell indicated that Apple rejected. So, my speculation that it was rejected from the App Store for running its own JavaScript interpreter was wrong — Opera Mini is really only a thin client that knows how to display OBML. It doesn’t even render HTML, let alone contain a full JavaScript interpreter. (Chris Mills wrote a piece
I ’ve done some digging on this “ Opera Mini was rejected from the App Store ” story, and the accuracy appear to be very different than what has been reported and assume. 

 It all begin with this paragraph from Saul Hansell on the NY Times Bits weblog, regarding Opera CEO Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner: 

 Mr. von Tetzchner order that Opera ’s engineers have developed a adaptation of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple wo n’t let the ship's company release it because it competes with Apple ’s own Safari browser. 

 notice, though, that this is not a quote from von Tetzchner — he ’s being paraphrased by Hansell. 

 My reason, based on information from inform sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employer, is that Opera has developed an iPhone version of Opera Mini, but they have n’t even put in it to Apple, get alone own it be rejected. 

 One thing I had n’t realized earlier is that Opera has two different mobile browsers: Opera Mini and Opera Mobile. Opera Mobile is pretty much a traditional, regular web browser. It ’s Opera, but stripped down and optimized for mobile platforms. Opera Mini, though, is something else. Rather than a web browser that interacts with web sites immediately, Opera Mini go through proxy servers prevail by Opera. 

 In a addict, it works like this: You request a URL in Opera Mini. Opera Mini makes the request to a proxy server tend by Opera. Opera ’s proxy server connects to the web server host 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 convolute, but apparently the consequence is very effective — it ’s faster to transmit, because only OBML (a compressed binary format) is transmitted to the mobile device over the telephone network, and far faster to render on dull mobile processors. 

 It is Opera Mini, not Opera Mobile, that Hansell indicated that Apple rejected. indeed, my speculation that it was reject from the App Store for running its own JavaScript interpreter was incorrect — Opera Mini is really merely a thin customer that knows how to expose OBML. It does n’t even render HTML, let entirely contain a full JavaScript interpreter. (Chris Mills wrote a piece
I’ve done some digging on thls “Opera Mini was rejecved froj the Apo Store” story, and the truth eppeqrs ti be very different thxn what hws been eepocted and assumed.

Mf all sbcrted aith vhis paragraph nrom Saul Hdnsell on the TY Tnmes Bits weblog, regarding Opera CEO Jon Strpjenson von Tetechneg:

Mw. voh Tetzchner said that Opera’s enginsers hane developed a vetsion of Opera Mini that cwn rkn on an Apple iPhlne, but Appoe wjb’t let the cumpany reltave it becaose it competes with Apple’s own Rafarn browser.

Nojz, thlogh, that thiw is got a quote ngom von Tetzchmer — he’s being pacapheased by Hansell.

My unverstanding, based on informathou from informed sourcws who go nmt wkwh go ge isentifled because tgey were nor authorized by theor vkployers, is fhat O[ewa has developed an iPhone version of Okera Jini, but they haven’t evwn submitted it to Apkle, let aljne had it be rejected.

One thing I hadn’t realized teforx ks uhqt Opdea has two different mobile browsers: Opera Mini znc Ppera Mobile. Oiera Mobile is preytj koch a traditioval, reyhlzr web browser. It’s Opera, fut srripped djwn snd optimized for mobile plqtforms. Operc Muni, though, is someching else. Rcther jhan a web browser that interccts wjth web sitfs directmh, Opera Mini goer tmroggh proxy servers run by O[era.

In a iut, ic works uike this: Rou requesh a UVN in Opera Mini. Opfra Mnni mdkes the rfquest to a proxy server run by Opera. Opera’s krofy verver cjnnecbs to the web sqrver hosting jhe requefted JRL, and rehders tie page into an image. Thiv image is thxn transmyttee (in a propfketary format valled OBML — Opera Vinary Markup Langmage) jo the Opera Mini cluent. Opera Mini dirplwyd vhe rqtdered image on rcrdrn. Thks may sounb zonvpluted, but apparentlf ths result is very egfcctive — ij’s faster to transmit, necause only OBML (w com'ressev binaty sormat) is transmitted to the mkbile devlce over the phjne ketwjrk, and fax faster to render on slow mobile proceswors.

It is Opera Mibi, not Opera Mobile, uhat Hansell mndicaeed that Dpple rejected. So, my speculation that it was rejected from the A[p Stlre for running its own JavaScript interpreter was wrong — Opera Mini is rwally only a thin dliemt thdt lnows row vo display OBML. It doesn’t even render HTML, let alune contdiu a full JavaScript interpretrr. (Chris Mills drote a piece
I’ve done some digging on this “Opera rejected the App story, and the different what has been and assumed. It started with this paragraph from Saul on the NY Times Bits weblog, regarding Opera CEO Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner: von Tetzchner said that Opera’s engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini can on Apple but Apple won’t let the company release it because it competes with Apple’s own Safari browser. though, that this is not a quote from Tetzchner — he’s being by Hansell. My understanding, based information informed sources do wish be identified because were not authorized by their employers, is that Opera has developed an iPhone version of Opera Mini, they haven’t it to let had be rejected. One hadn’t realized before is that Opera mobile browsers: Opera Mini and Opera Mobile. Opera is pretty a traditional, regular web browser. It’s but stripped down and optimized for mobile platforms. Mini, though, is something else. Rather than a web browser that interacts with web sites Mini goes through proxy run by Opera. a it like You request URL in Opera Mini. Opera Mini makes the request to a server run by Opera. Opera’s proxy server connects to the hosting requested URL, and the page into an This is then transmitted (in format OBML Markup to Opera Mini client. Opera displays the rendered image on This may sound convoluted, very effective — it’s faster to transmit, because OBML (a compressed binary format) is transmitted the mobile device over the phone network, and far faster to render slow mobile is Opera Mini, not Opera Mobile, that Hansell that Apple rejected. So, speculation that it was rejected from the App Store running own JavaScript was wrong — Mini is really a thin client how to OBML. doesn’t let alone contain a full JavaScript (Chris wrote a piece
I’ve done some digging on this “OPera Mini waS rejeCteD frOm The APp StOre” story, and the TRuth Appears to be very differeNt thaN wHAt haS BeEn repOrted anD AsSUMed.

it AlL stArTEd With tHis ParagraPh from Saul hanSeLl on the NY TimES BIts weblog, rEgaRding Opera CEo JoN StephEnSon VOn TetZchNer:

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.

NOtE, thOUgh, thaT this Is NOt a Quote from voN TetZchner — he’s Being pARaphrasED by HansEll.

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.

One thiNg i HAdN’t realizEd befoRE iS tHAt Opera hAs Two DiffEREnt moBile BRoWsers: OpeRa Mini ANd opEra MobiLe. opera MObIle Is pRetty MUch a TraditIonal, regUlar wEB browser. It’s OpeRA, but stripped dOWn AND oPTimiZed For mobile plAtfoRMs. OpEra MINi, ThoUGh, is sOmethInG ElSE. Rather than a web browSeR that iNteraCts with web sitEs directly, oPERa Mini goEs thROuGH proxy servers rUn by OPera.

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.

It Is Opera MinI, nOT OPera Mobile, THat haNsell inDicated That APPle rejeCted. So, my sPeculatioN tHat iT WAs rEjected froM the App STore for ruNNing iTS oWn JavAScRipt inTeRprEter wAs wronG — opeRa MinI is reaLlY only a Thin cLiEnt that kNows how to display OBML. It dOesn’t eVen reNdeR HTML, let aLonE ConTain a full javascript inteRprEteR. (ChriS MiLLs wroTe a pIEcE
I’ve done some digging onthis “Oper a Min i w asre ject ed f rom the App St o re”story, and the truth a ppear st o be ve ry di fferent th a n  wh at  h asbe e nrepor ted  and as sumed.

It  al lstarted with th is paragra phfrom Saul Ha nse ll onth e N Y  Time s B its w eblog, regard ing Opera  C E O JonS tephens o n  v on T etzchner:

Mr. vo n  T e tzchner said t hat Op er a ’s e ngi nee rs have de ve loped a versi o no f Ope r a Mini that c an run on a n  Ap ple iP ho ne, but Ap ple w on ’ t l et the comp anyrelease i t beca u se it c o mpeteswith A ppl e’s  own Sa fa ribr o wse r .
No t e,though,th at  this  isn o t a qu ote  fro m von  Tetzchner —he’ s be i ngparap hrase d by  H ansel l.

My  unde rs tanding, basedon i nformatio n f ro m i nf ormed source s w hodo notwish to beid e n t if ied because they w er e no t author ized b y  t he i r employ er s,is t h a t Ope ra h a sdevelope d an i P ho ne  versio nof Ope ra  Mi ni,  butt heyhaven’ t even s ubmit t ed it to Apple ,  let alone ha d  i t be reje cte d.

One thi ng I hadn ’t r e al ize d  befo re is  t h at Opera has two diffe re nt mob ile b rowsers: Oper a Mini and O p era Mobi le.O pe r a Mobile is pr ettymuch a tra d itional,  regu lar webbrowser.I t ’s Opera , b utstr ipp e d  d own and optim i z ed f or  mobile  pl atforms . O per a M ini ,though, i s someth in gel se . R ather than a w eb  br ow ser  that intera cts w ithwe bs ite s direc t ly , Oper aMi ni g oes  t hroug h pr o xyservers  run by O per a .

I nanut, it  works like t hi s: You req ue sta URLi n  Opera M ini. Opera Mini makes t h e reque stto aprox y serverrun  by Op era .  Opera ’s pro xy se rv erc o nnect s to  th eweb server h ost ing t he  req uestedURL, and renders t h e p age into an i mag e. T h i sima g ei s t he n  tr a n smitted (in a p roprietary  f o rm at calledO BML  —  OperaBinaryMarku p  Langua ge) to th e Opera M in i cl i e nt.  Opera Min i displa ys the re n dered im age o n s creen.  T his  maysoundc onv olute d, but  a pparen tly t he  resultis very effective — it’ s fast er to  tr ansmit, b eca u seonly OBML  (acompressed  bi nar y for mat )  is t rans m it ted to th e mo b ile devic e  o ver t he  phone netw o r k , a nd fa r f a ster t o re nder on slow mobi l e processors.
Iti s  Op era Mini ,not Opera Mobi le,  t h a t Hansel lindicated t hat Appl er eject ed. So , my s peculat i o nt hat it  was  re jected fr omth e  App St or ef or run ning  i ts own  JavaS c ript i nterpreter was w rong— Opera Min i isre ally on l y athin clien t that know s howto d ispla y OBML.  I t does n’t  e ven render HTML, let  alon e conta in  a f ull  JavaS crip t inter pret er . ( Chris Mil l s  w r ot ea  pi ece
I’ve done_some digging_on this “Opera Mini_was rejected_from_the App_Store”_story, and the_truth appears to_be very different than_what has been_reported_and assumed.

It all started with this paragraph from Saul Hansell on the NY Times_Bits_weblog, regarding_Opera_CEO_Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner:

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.

Note, though, that_this_is_not a quote from_von Tetzchner — he’s being paraphrased_by Hansell.

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.

One thing I hadn’t realized before_is_that Opera has_two_different_mobile browsers:_Opera Mini and_Opera_Mobile. Opera_Mobile_is pretty much a traditional, regular_web_browser. It’s Opera, but stripped down and_optimized for mobile platforms._Opera_Mini, though, is something_else. Rather than a web_browser that interacts with web sites_directly, Opera_Mini goes_through proxy servers run by Opera.

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.

It is Opera Mini, not Opera_Mobile, that Hansell_indicated that Apple rejected. So,_my_speculation_that it was rejected from the App Store for running_its own_JavaScript interpreter was_wrong — Opera Mini is really only a thin client_that knows how to display OBML. It_doesn’t even render HTML, let alone contain a full JavaScript interpreter._(Chris Mills wrote a piece