Slashdot Mirror


Apple Allows Lotus On iPhone (After Banning Competitor)

ImNotAtWork writes "Apple is allowing IBM's Lotus to be installed on iPhones. Recently it killed a developer-submitted program that was deemed competitive with Apple's product."

5 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Withdraw this article before it's too late! by astrosmash · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lotus Notes for iPhone is just a plain old Web app. You can't stop the web.

    --
    ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
    1. Re:Withdraw this article before it's too late! by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Seconded. I imagine that apple did, in fact, ban this from the 'real' application store, but this is a webapp - a monstrosity of HTML, Javascript, and AJAX. It's just a webpage, and Apple doesn't give two shits. And even if they did, they couldn't do anything about it.

      HIGHLY MISLEADING ARTICLE!

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  2. +1 for actually reading the article before posting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did the poster even read this article before posting it? It clearly says that it's a web based application that will run through the Safari browser. Nothing gets installed on the iPhone. Try reading it next time before posting, that way the headline you choose might make sense.

  3. IBM not on the AppStore, just a webapp. by Hozza · · Score: 5, Informative

    The IBM system is just a web app i.e. a web page with AJAX, viewed via Safari on the iphone. Of course Apple can't ban it, anymore than they can ban you from visiting gmail with an iphone.

    The whole AppStore NDA issue is important, and worthy of discussion, but can we at least avoid FUD ridden straw men like this one.

  4. That's not what I've read... by pstorry · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's not what I read at Ed Brill's site...

    What I read was lots of iPhone fanboys screaming that there was no enterprise sync with Domino/Notes, and that this would single-handedly kill the product as Corporate America spent the next month doing nothing but throwing out all phones for iPhones, and all mail systems for Exchange.
    (That's why I call them fanboys - their reasoned analysis and reaction identifies them as such to me.)

    IBM's response was (and had to be) "Apple didn't approach us about it, and we can't do it on our own as the SDK as shipped doesn't have the appropriate APIs exposed".
    Basically, Apple chose to work with Microsoft only when it came to synching with Enterprise systems, and IBM has little control over that.

    Now, IBM had _already_ been developing the iNotes Lite system that the NY Times article refers to.

    The full iNotes webmail system is pretty good, but it's also a pretty complicated web application which only ran on a couple of supported browsing platforms - all desktop. (For example, until recently, it was actually IE only, with ActiveX components.)

    To give people access to the basics no matter what the (modern) browser someone was using, iNotes Lite was developed. (The betas have been shown to work on the Opera browser of a Nintendo Wii, amongst other things.)

    So this wasn't even really developed specifically for the iPhone. It's just the first thing that IBM have shipped which can work on an iPhone.

    IBM may or may not be working with Apple to get more native integration working on the iPhone. But given how open and public Apple are, we likely wouldn't know until it ships.

    But let's be clear - the real blocker is the lack of support from Apple. This isn't specific to IBM - my understanding is that if you wanted to write something that used SyncML to synchronise an iPhone and a Funambol server, you couldn't do it either. The SDK has no documented ways of doing access to the mail/calender/to-do application storage that would allow integration, so unless you can work with Apple directly you're stuck.

    What's really interesting is that IBM's marketing is now spinning it as "The iPhone wasn't secure, this is".

    That could be IBM giving up on Apple and just going with what they've got. Or it could be IBM toning their public reaction down from "Apple are crap and don't want to work with us" because they are working with Apple now.

    Only time will tell.

    I feel pretty sorry for IBM on this whole affair. The sheer hype around the iPhone makes this somehow a major story, when in the grand scheme of things - even within the computing world - it's actually rather a non-event...