Web Browser Wars Go Mobile 132
alphadogg writes "A new generation of mobile Web browsers is finally making the Web a reality on handheld devices.
The latest example is last week's beta launch of Opera Mobile 9.5, a native Web browser for high-end smartphones. It's an evolutionary release for the Norwegian software company, but it comes just days after Apple's iPhone 3G, with its highly capable Safari browser, went on sale. Other brand-new entrants, such as Mobile Firefox and Skyfire, are expected later this year, at least in beta form. But the evolving mobile browsers are only one part of the picture. Mobile browsing is affected by the client hardware, ranging from the processor to the kind of wireless network being used, all of which have improved markedly. It's also affected by the design of Web sites being targeted, and there's new attention being focused on optimizing these sites for mobile users."
Re:Opera Mini (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding? "very slow 3g connections"? I guess you don't remember when 14.4 kbps modems were considered blazing fast because to me bringing up most websites in Safari on my iPhone 3G is very snappy unless I'm somewhere with bad coverage so that my phone has to resort to connecting using Edge.
Also, the user interface when using Safari on the iPhone 3G is vastly superior to anything else I've experienced on a cellphone, including a bunch of Opera-using ones. My last phone came with Opera and I really tried to like it but the UI made me want to smash my phone into little pieces....
/Mikael
Re:Poor writing (Score:3, Interesting)
The writing in the description is poorly constructed. When someone reads "It's an evolutionary release for the Norwegian software company, but it comes just days after Apple's iPhone 3G, with its highly capable Safari browser, went on sale" they would reasonably assume that in the context of the article, this "Browser War" has suddenly sprung up, and that all of the opening shots are being fired right now.
No they wouldn't. Why do so many people read things with the attitude of, "well, *I* understand what they said, but this is going to be confusing to the average reader [who is naturally not as smart as me] and thus I must step forward and defend these poor souls who will naturally draw wrong conclusions that only super-smart people [like me] will realize aren't true."
Of course, the "highly capable" Safari browser has been out for a year on the pre-3G iPhones too, a distinction that the text confuses terribly.
No it doesn't. It mentions that a new generation of iPhone is out, in context with a new version of Opera, and that entirely new browsers are coming. These are relevant facts, and there's nothing confused about them, despite your assertion that people [other than you] will misread what was said.
The 'browser war' has been mobile since the first day God crapped out a WAP-enabled cell phone, and just as humans went from sticks and rocks to atomic weapons, the years of mobile browsing 'warfare' has progressed to a point where the phones are almost within eyeshot of being as capable as the desktop machines.
Yup. And with a new generation of devices coming out with certain existing browsers, along with entirely new browsers being released soon, it's going to heat up quick.
To declare this a 'new war' is disingenuous at best, and manipulative of page hits for the purpose of generating advertising revenue at worst.
Good thing they didn't do that, then.
Re:Opera Mini (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that everything goes through Opera's proxy server is good for speed (usually, I've had plenty of times where it sat processing for over a minute on large pages), but do you really want your bank info being pulled up there? And what is this very slow 3G connection you're talking about? Pulling up slashdot on Opera Mobile 9.5 on AT&T's 3G takes about 6 seconds. Formatted perfectly too. Mini is great for simplified browsing, but Mobile is just so much nicer for "real" browsing.
What's wrong with the Palm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone have any suggestions, beyond cranking up the memory available for Java apps and threads (which I've done, and it made a huge positive difference), that might make it more stable?
Re:Opera Mini (Score:3, Interesting)
Blazer works well enough for most quick data lookup purposes. I've knocked together a beer list web app [alfter.us] with it in mind, so that it runs reasonably quickly on my phone. While a more fully-featured browser in my phone would be nice, if push comes to shove, I can just have my notebook use the phone's Internet connection and bring up Firefox on that.
Re:What's wrong with the Palm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's wrong with the Palm... (Score:3, Interesting)
I was able to get Opera Mini 4.1 working a little better on my Treo 680 using these instructions [typepad.com], but even then it still locks up the device, forcing me to have to remove the battery. You can try bumping up the memory to 8 MB instead of 4 like the TypePad article suggests. I haven't tried it at 8 long enough to know if it makes much of a difference. Hope that helps!
Be sure to post again here with instructions on making it more stable if you come across any good tips.
Re:Opera Mini (Score:4, Interesting)
Although I'm not sure why this is relevant, it might be worth noting that the Nokia N60 uses WebKit (the same engine as Safari) by default, as will all the Android phones. It's also at the core of many other applications [webkit.org]. What's more, there have been several reports that Safari has the highest mobile market share in terms of actual use, rather than mere installed base.
Skyfire (Score:2, Interesting)
Skyfire is already in beta. I got my invite in April after I applied a couple of months prior.
I'm using it on a Motorola Q with EVDO from Verizon. It's a really powerful browser. Finally, I'm able to surf just about any website and it just works. Flash embeds work perfectly. It really broadens what I can do with my phone while on the road.
Skyfire does server-side rendering, therefore it's not really a browser. It's more like a viewer. Because of this, start up times are annoyingly slow (15 - 25 seconds). But pages load really fast and I don't experience breaks in audio or video when listening to podcasts or YouTube videos while driving down the interstate.
I kind of like the idea of offloading page rendering/transcoding to a server. Then again, if the Skyfire servers ever go down I'm SOL.
I rarely use the browser because using mobile websites in pocket IE is good enough for 90% of what I do. If the Motorola Q was a touchscreen device, I would enjoy Skyfire more.
Re:Build a better mouse... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of the little situation where it is a blessing that the iPhone uses plain standard HTML/CSS/Javascript and has no (official) support for "thick clients" like Java of Flash. Which are currently the web vandals' advertisers' tools of choice to spit their scum.
Except for Flash/Java games. And YouTube. Now, YouTube is available on the iPhone but only some videos, and it is a lot easier and cheaper to just watch the music video on YouTube then to buy it on iTunes or hunt for the song on Last.FM or your favorite 'Net radio stations. And Flash games would just be awesome using the touch screen....
Don't want no damn mobile-optimized stuff! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Issues with Opera (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point, the support might be worth it, but my point was that getting an embedded browser working on Linux isn't that easy. With the source code to a browser it considerably easier (assuming you have the skill set), and you aren't limited as much as with a pre-packaged browser. Granted, opera is in business to make money, so they charge for their SDK, which is totally fine with me. It might cost less for an unskilled team to have opera do the integration, whereas a more skilled team will be able to complete it for a lower cost via open source.
Re:What am I missing here? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the browser as much as the connection. I have an original (EDGE) iPhone and a co-worker just got a BB which also runs on (AT&T) EDGE. For fun I put them next to each other and tried to open Slashdot on each. The iPhone took a bit, as you've doubtless seen--20, 30 seconds or so. The BB's screen went dark several times while I was waiting for it to load and I finally cancelled it after a couple minutes. Looking at a few other pages was literally a step or two above using lynx over ssh. THe iPhone, as you've seen, looks just like a desktop browser, just shrunken. WORLDS of difference.
It is so painfully slow it makes dial-up, which I haven't done in over a decade, look good.
Well, of course, it's not ideal, and I'd rather not ONLY use it, but it's certainly workable in certain situations. You've already said it's just usable enough to use in a few situations; it's only going to get better.
BTW, it's the web's fault as much as anything else. Slashdot loaded faster on my P75 in 1998 with "auto load images" turned off over a 28.8 connection than it does today on my dual-G5 on a T1 at work. I'm waiting for someone to make (and Apple to allow) a webkit-based browser for iPhone that ignores CSS and JavaScript. (And accepts an ad-blocking /etc/hosts file.)