Screenhots of AT&T’s custom Opera Mini browser

Wap Review's AT&T browser hands-on provided some details about AT&T's customized Opera Mini browser, but didn't provide any screenshots. It turns out that there were some screenshots in the Q3 2009 financial presentation from today, and indeed, it doesn't look like Opera Mini at all. …


I must say that it looks pretty nice, and you can't even tell what it's based on. Here is a look at the three different available sections:


I'm not sure if this is Opera Mini 4 or 5, but Opera Mini 5 is supposedly much, much easier to customize than the previous version.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Screenhots of AT&T’s custom Opera Mini browser

  1. So not even a single note "powered by Opera Technologies" (I just though on that name) or something? I mean, every other Firefox clones proudly publishes on their sites' homepages: "Based on Mozilla browser" or something. :worried: Personally, I don't think that hiding the browser's origins on embedded or or other devices makes any good for Opera; I mean, not even the Internet Channel on the Wii says something about Opera, or does it? At least on the Wii screenshots I've seen so far, there's nothing about it. :left:

  2. Originally posted by Keldian:

    So not even a single note "powered by Opera Technologies" (I just though on that name) or something? I mean, every other Firefox clones proudly publishes on their sites' homepages: "Based on Mozilla browser" or something.

    This is crazy. No, "Firefox clones" do not do that. And besides, "Firefox clones" aren't Mozilla customers. They took the Firefox codebase for free and used it for stuff.AT&T, on the other hand, PAID Opera. Do you really think Opera is in a position to boss their CUSTOMERS around?What do you know about business, exactly? NOTHING, presumably.

    Personally, I don't think that hiding the browser's origins on embedded or or other devices makes any good for Opera;

    So you would rather that Opera rejected the money AT&T was throwing at them? Laughable.

    I mean, not even the Internet Channel on the Wii says something about Opera, or does it?

    Yes it does.

  3. Originally posted by Purdi:

    This is crazy. No, "Firefox clones" do not do that. And besides, "Firefox clones" aren't Mozilla customers. They took the Firefox codebase for free and used it for stuff.AT&T, on the other hand, PAID Opera. Do you really think Opera is in a position to boss their CUSTOMERS around?What do you know about business, exactly? NOTHING, presumably.

    What? Firefox "clones" DO MENTION MOZILLA'S CODE. And every reviews about those different products DO always remark: "This project is based upon Firefox's code", which in my opinion is yet another -indirect- source of marketing for them, besides from banners from YouTube, Ad-Words links, magazine/blogs reviews and whatnot.Sure, grabbing some bucks is always positive, but I think those are marketing points that goes to waste before them can even be used. Archos' PMPs use Opera browser on them, but there's nothing about Opera on their website either. :worried: And yes, I do not know much about business, big deal. Still that doesn't make me think that wasting some presence in the real world can be any good. Firefox and Google Chrome can be sen on press almost every bloody day; by keeping proportions in mind, couldn't Opera aspire to get the same -generally- good attention?Originally posted by Purdi:

    So you would rather that Opera rejected the money AT&T was throwing at them? Laughable.

    That Y=Z does not imply that X=Z. I meant it could be a good thing for Opera to be shown in AT&T's interface, an d not to reject the whole payment if contrary.

    Yes it does.

    Really? Hmmm, that's good to know, thank you.;)

  4. Originally posted by Keldian:

    What? Firefox "clones" DO MENTION MOZILLA'S CODE.

    Some != all. BTW, the license might require it, so not doing it might be illegal!

    And every reviews about those different products DO always remark: "This project is based upon Firefox's code", which in my opinion is yet another -indirect- source of marketing for them

    And guess what, reviews of the Internet Channel DO mention that it's Opera.

    Sure, grabbing some bucks is always positive, but I think those are marketing points that goes to waste before them can even be used.

    So, throw away the money, right? That's just pure idiocy.

    Archos' PMPs use Opera browser on them, but there's nothing about Opera on their website either.

    Bullsh*t: http://www.archos.com/products/imt/archos_5/accessories.html?country=us&lang=en&p=plugins

    Still that doesn't make me think that wasting some presence in the real world can be any good.

    This is pure craziness. You really think Opera CONSCIOUSLY decided NOT to show any Opera branding? That's just idiocy. Of course Opera would want to show Opera branding, BUT THE CUSTOMER DECIDES.God dammit, how hard is it to understand this?You keep spewing out nonsense as if Opera is in a position to dictate what its customers are supposed to do!

    Firefox and Google Chrome can be sen on press almost every bloody day; by keeping proportions in mind, couldn't Opera aspire to get the same -generally- good attention?

    They ARE getting attention. Of course Chrome is getting press. It's made by f*cking GOOGLE!

    That Y=Z does not imply that X=Z. I meant it could be a good thing for Opera to be shown in AT&T's interface, an d not to reject the whole payment if contrary.

    BUT THAT IS NOT UP TO OPERA, FFS! Pay attention and stop talking nonsense.

  5. I prefer the opera 4.2 set up. It's a blogger's browser, a tool.The 3.1 and 5.0 beta are more like reader / social site browsers.

Comments are closed.