You are here

Apple allowing 3rd party web browsers into App Store. All in all, it’s another brick out of the wall.

It seems Apple’s policy of not allowing any application that replicates the functionality of an Apple iPod Touch/iPhone application into the App Store is relenting.

Back in November, Apple quietly allowed admission of an app called BdEmailer, an alternative to Apple’s “MAIL” app that supports client SMTP, apparently duplicating (and improving upon) Apple’s client…or so the blogosphere would believe. A quick visit to the app dev’s site shows that BdEmailer is designed for outgoing mail only. Reading incoming mail is not part of its functionality.

Now, Apple has opened up its App Store to applications that truly DO replicate, and improve upon, existing core apps; in this case, Safari. As of yesterday, there are at least 4 new internet browsers available in the App Store, ranging in price from free to $1.99 US.

They, and their features, are:

Edge Browser – Free – No loss of screen real estate to the address or navigation bars

Incognito – $1.99USD – Now you can browse without leaving a history of any kind.

WebMate: Tabbed Browser – $0.99USD – Web Mate simplifies browsing by queuing up all the links you click on, then allowing you to view them one by one when you’re ready.

Shaking Web – $1.99USD – adds a sophisticated algorithm to compensate for small hand shaking to allow for easier reading. (iPhoneHacks)

This can’t be considered anything but good news by anyone who doesn’t appreciate Apple’s closed-platform architecture or their walled-garden practices, but it is likely something of a sore spot for the folks over at Opera, who have developed a version of their mobile browser that will indeed work on the iPhone and has been actively campaigning since at least October 2008 to get it admitted into the App Store. As of this writing, there is no indication that Opera will be granted the Golden Ticket of App Store distribution.

According to MacRumors, some of the new browsers that have been admitted have been seeking entry for just as long.

Whether the fact the the admitted apps are based on Webkit, while Opera is not, has any bearing on Apple’s decision to let them into the app store is uncertain. If I were to speculate though, I would hazard a guess that Apple would deny a non-webkit-based browser using reliability as their core argument…which, considering the crash-happy Safari, would be hi-freakin’-larious.

The Webkit issue does mean, however, that Google’s Chrome browser should have no trouble gaining admittance, once an apple-compliant version is released.

Apple’s change of heart regarding the App Store comes hot on the heels of Palm’s announcement of the App Catalogue (or App Cat) for the upcoming WebOS-based Palm Pre, which Palm has said “will offer free and certified applications, (but) anyone who wants to design software for the Pre will be free to do so and won’t be required to seek Palm’s approval, as seen with others such as Apple.” Once can only speculate on whether Apple’s policies are changing due to this announcement.

But the point is, they’re changing, and for the better.

.

NOTE: I just checked the App Store for Edge Browser (the free one) and it’s not coming up in search. Either it’s a US-only application, or it’s been yanked.

-rye

.

Related posts

15 thoughts on “Apple allowing 3rd party web browsers into App Store. All in all, it’s another brick out of the wall.

  1. […] programs for the ipod and offered free ipod downloads in their websites or at the Apple.com Apple allowing 3rd party web browsers into App Store. All in all, it’s another brick out of the wa… – rgbfilter.com 01/14/2009 It seems Apple’s policy of not allowing any application that […]

  2. I wouldn’t go too far toward trying to figure out what Apple’s policies are (webkit, no webkit, etc.) because they’ve shown pretty clearly that they have no consistent policies. The community has been learning that if you get rejected once, just roll the dice and submit exactly the same program again with a different version number. So this could mean that Apple’s opening up, or that somebody in the bowels of 1 Infinite Loop has indigestion and hit ‘approved’ twenty times without thinking about it. Need more data.

  3. That’s a possibility I hadn’t considered actually XD

    Like I say, this is all speculation at this point. But if in fact Apple is relaxing its policies regarding the App Store, this is good news indeed.

    1. I agree. In the end I care much more about free art than free tech, and won’t really be willing to lay off until no books and such are banned. But they’re both important.

  4. Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I’ve read these aren’t alternative WebKit based browsers at all, merely plug-ins/mods for Mobile Safari.

    I’d call you out on the title of the post, but if Engadget, Macrumors, Gizmodo et al are willing to let their posts stand uncorrected, I guess we can too. 🙂

    /snark

    1. froggybootknocker

      it is misleading thats for sure even though it is vaguely alluded to (see 3rd paragraph)

      i was going to point out the same thing this morning doug untill i stopped and remembered that im not losing any sleep over my iphone that lacks so many bells and whistles /sarcasm 😀

      1. Oh this has less to do with the iPhone and more to do with shitty coverage.

        Gizmodo, Engadget and just about every other major tech site just ran with the story without actually reading the product descriptions, two of which are explicit in stating they use Safari’s engine.

        :p

        1. Saw something about that too…but didn’t put 2+2 together and realize that using the Safari version of Webkit meant it was just a tweaked Safari.

        2. froggybootknocker

          totally…

          being said i dont know what the hubbub is all about anyways, if you really want to get haXor with your ifone just jailbreak it, get a serial number scrambler and take all rob the app store blind… 😀

          1. froggybootknocker

            edit: removes the words take and all

          2. The hubbub is about it shouldn’t just be freedom of speech but only for the technologically savvy. If you are rejected from the App Store and have to market only to hackers your art is therefore defined as second class in that ecology and is crippled. Look at it from the perspective of the person trying to exercise their freedom to say something, rather than from the perspective of, ‘You n00bs deserve your walled garden.’ Would *you* want to be so limited when you have something important you want to say?

            And even if you are savvy enough to do the hack, that community is so small that developers may not even release a jailbroken version if they are denied from the App Store. Thus for you the result is the same – you’re not allowed to see it, no matter how wiley you are.

            I can tell you right now that many developers who were rejected from the App Store did not release for jailbreakers – they just packed up and went home.

            1. froggybootknocker

              i never said jailbreaking was a marketting angle from apple, just pointing out again that it IS an option for those who feel that the iphone has too many restrictions (which is something i wouldnt do anywhoo)

              on my list of gripes with the iphone, multiple browsers simply aint one of them…

            2. Well I agree there, as I said before blocked browsers is not my main issue. It’s still shitty, but censored art is much more repugnant and in that case jailbreaking doesn’t help you much because the artists are much less likely to try alternate distribution because of the tiny market.

  5. 747454 91842A thoughtful insight and tips I will use on my site. Youve obviously spent some time on this. Congratulations! 492119

  6. 675393 188773Quite instructive and great bodily structure of topic matter, now thats user pleasant (:. 931092

Leave a Comment