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.
Pointless. This is likely a self-hosted webapp (on your corporate Lotus server), which means their list would need to include lotus.jpmorgan.com, etc... that would be a Big Fucking Mistake. They might not care about the enmity of users, but they sure care about their business users who could just as easily go back to Windows Mobile.
Lotus notes is not the same as using Mail and iCal on the iPhone. The program that was denied by Apple usurped those apps into its own app. To my knowledge Mail or iCal have no Lotus syncing features.
I'm not defending Apple's decisions on what apps can run and can't; if anything I'm really p*ssed that they would prevent any "competitive" product from running on the iPhone.
That said, Notes is something completely different than a straight email program. If anything, it's basically a database program, and email is just another schema in it. It's so completely unlike regular email programs that I could see Apple not having a problem with it, especially since you need to have a Notes server to get/put anyth
You've apparently been drinking far too much of Lotus' kool-aid. Yes, Notes can do lots of databasey things. But, let's be honest here. No matter how much Notes infrastructure your company tries to put in place, well over 90% of most users' experience with it is email. Lotus simply needs to understand that.
I really wish Lotus would get this concept through their heads. I don't care HOW much they try to sell its other "features" (which now directly compete against... WEB APPLICATIONS!), if they can't g
Hah, I've seen plenty of places that have replaced Notes for email functionality but kept it for the huge volume of home grown apps that use it's great database replication infrastructure to positive effect. It's almost always more cost effective to pay for CAL's and maintenance then to try to replicate the functionality in a new system. Also, the email experience has been vastly changed with the Notes 8 client, it's much more Outlooky.
I think its incredible that they wont let people download their own email client. The vendor of the phone shouldnt even have this power. Email clients are basic functionality. Installing your own doesnt hurt Apple in any way. Typical Apple: run by short-sighted MBAs. Im so glad I didnt give in to the iphone madness. WM isnt sexy but it runs everything.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday October 01 2008, @07:59AM (#25217147)
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.
I cannot understand the reason why the parent is a troll. The "application" in this case is a web application, not a native installed application.
The post, states clearly:
"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."
Which is wrong. I cannot see that the parent is a "troll". IT could even be argued the actual Slashdot post is a troll (patent lie, followed by a heated "angle" to start a flamewar)
As many others have already noted, this is just a web app, and the parallels drawn to app banning are misguided on a number of fronts). What's surprising is that IBM got completely shut-out on the enterprise side of things. At the 3G release keynote, "enterprise" basically was taken to mean "Exchange," and IBM was left twiddling their thumbs.
There's an IBM exec's blog that I found amusing to read (http://edbrill.com). If you thumb through the back archives and read between the lines, you can see the s*
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...
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.
IBM's Lotus provides more functionality than the email app that was not allowed by Apple. .
There certainly seems to be a lot of whining by a vocal few who feel entitled to access to the iPhone. I especially enjoy the whining of people who have their apps disallowed. The reasons for the app rejection were well known, if only they had read the developers' agreement with Apple that they had agreed to before they started developing their apps.
Any justifiable limit on freedom will be adapted to unjustifiable purposes for which it was not originally intended.
There is a legitimate justification for denying developers unrestricted freedom to publish iPhone apps: It keeps consumers safe from malicious applications.
Now that after the policy of denying freedom to publish has been established, for that legitimate purpose, it is adapted to the illegitimate purposes of restraining competition and playing favorites.
Notes email client isn't even a *good* email client.
Notes is more like a browser for a weird mainframe version of the web, based on copying and synchronizing databases. It's like what you'd have gotten if OSI networking and IBM mainframes had been the basis of the world wide web.
Lotus is a brand, not a product. As far as I know, the product IBM Lotus is releasing for the iPhone is iNotes, the webmail interface to a Lotus Domino mail server. This isn't a Notes client for the iPhone.
Apple didn't "a developer submitted program that was deemed competitive with Apple's product" - the did not approve an app that they felt had no difference from an existing, core application. Releasing an app, for profit, that does the exact same thing as an existing core app _should_ result in it not being approved. Something tells me that Lotus is quite dramatically different from the core apps on the iPhone which is why it was approved. Had the other developer actually _developed_ a mail app, with diffe
Is it too much to ask that people who complain about inaccurate Slashdot summaries actually RTFA so they don't also make the same mistakes as the summarizer?
Clue: Apple didn't need to approve anything because the iPhone Notes client is a web application.
The program that was banned appeared to do nothing that mail.app did not do. The google thing has been part of it for a while. If this app allows direct access to the lotus server, then that is something new and maybe useful, especially if it works. I cannot get the phone to work with exchange.
It is annoying that apple will just not allow any app that is not malicious, but I haven't seen a case where something useful (other than voip and other things that ATT will not allow) has been banned.
The inherent reason to allow lotus notes on the i-evil-phone is to penetrate into the corporate IT infrastructure to replace the crackberry. As most of the readers here know, IBM's Lotus Notes still hold a chunky size of enterprise messaging market, to the dismay of Redmond. By allowing Lotus notes, they are making the inroads.
Also whoever thinks Lotus notes has a better UI than any mail app, is insane in my opinion. People use Lotus notes because they have to by corporate policy. When they add it to their i-phones, it is not going to replace the use of mailapp by no means, with the exception of 3 masochistic i-phone owners. Whereas the addition of a better functioning maill front end, might force Apple to revisit theor own mail app, which means money out of Steve the conman's pocket. It is intolerable...
Sorry to say this but I don't think Lotus Notes should be considered a viable e-mail client.
I know this sounds like a troll, but I have to use it every day, and honestly trying to get raw e-mail source is a chore that no one should have to ever do.
This decision for Apple however does contradict the position for the so called small developer that had their app banned for competing.
What a dumb, misleading title for an article. Well, welcome to the anti-Apple bandwagon/.
Seems funny that this "story" is being presented the way that it is. Lotus Notes on an iPhone is a web app through the browser, this has absolutely nothing to do with the App Store, as is implied by the twit writing the story about the article. Apple has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing Lotus Notes to run since it's not an app in the app store.
Notes is a great platform for corporate apps. But any corp worth their salt is running their remote users through a VPN tunnel of some kind. So you'd need to run that tunnel or VPN dialer or tokenized app on the iPhone as well.
A single bug in Safari for iPhone can prevent it from running and all Apple has to say is "oops". As it doesn't even allow other browsers like Opera, you will be in big trouble.
iPhone is not a business device as long as it is run by a fascistic policy. I pity the businesses who buys Apple's claims with 2-3 poster child apps and I _run_ everything on OS X/XServe.
And you honestly expect every business to write something as vital and complex as a Notes/GroupWise/Citadel/... client on their own, when they can just buy another hanset (like a BlackBerry) that handles them out of the box? Especially for such a petty reason as "duplicating built-in functionality"?
There are 5-6 competing third party and official apps exist on Symbian for things you mention. They update and enhance even monthly since there is a huge, healthy competition where you can show the finger to Nokia's own mail client and use a third party client as default.
If I tell you there are 3-4 different titles (recently that famous windows one) to display PDF from free to commercial, you can easily guess the competition.
I am all for competition and freedom unless it dangers my security. Symbian and sad
There is no grounds for comparing the app that was banned (essentially a Gmail front end as an app) and "allowing" iNotes ultralite that is actually a web page on your Notes/Domino server. This is just bad journalism on behalf of NY Times and seconded here.
Also - apple "allows" gmail web front end on iphone just exactly the same way it "allows" iNotes ultralite.
There is no grounds for comparing the app that was banned (essentially a Gmail front end as an app) and "allowing" iNotes ultralite that is actually a web page on your Notes/Domino server. This is just bad journalism on behalf of NY Times and seconded here.
Also - apple "allows" gmail web front end on iphone just exactly the same way it "allows" iNotes ultralite.
Did you hear? I just found out that they are also allowing slashdot and digg! This is great!
"Or maybe it's because it's not a product being sold in the iPhone App Store, it's just a web application they point Safari at."
Ok, now that you've made all comments redundant or irrelevant, let me ask you, dear leader: if the facebook app includes messaging functionality, doesn't it confuse users as much as the rejected gmail app?
It's conceivable that it violates their agreement with AT&T (or one or more of the other carriers). AT&T was probably nervous about the unlimited data plan, and it would make sense for the contract to restrict the types of programs that can access the network.
Apple is blocking every potential "iTunes store" competitor in fact. If you look to all that SDK madness, Flash not being included, no Java (even if Sun codes free) and "no apps can interpret".
I think they're referring to the notes, which is a groupware platform capable of email, calendering, workflow management etc. Kind of like Exchange and Sharepoint.
Except they're not. It's just a web front end to Notes.
It would be interesting though,because Notes was a highly secure system for doing these things back before the Internet was in widespread use. Even though it ran on primitive platforms, it included features like two factor security, digital signatures, robust encryption for communication a
Withdraw this article before it's too late! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Withdraw this article before it's too late! (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!
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple interprets choice as damage and routes around it.
Re:Withdraw this article before it's too late! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pointless. This is likely a self-hosted webapp (on your corporate Lotus server), which means their list would need to include lotus.jpmorgan.com, etc... that would be a Big Fucking Mistake. They might not care about the enmity of users, but they sure care about their business users who could just as easily go back to Windows Mobile.
Parent
Well this summery makes no sense (Score:4, Informative)
Notes is different (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not defending Apple's decisions on what apps can run and can't; if anything I'm really p*ssed that they would prevent any "competitive" product from running on the iPhone.
That said, Notes is something completely different than a straight email program. If anything, it's basically a database program, and email is just another schema in it. It's so completely unlike regular email programs that I could see Apple not having a problem with it, especially since you need to have a Notes server to get/put anyth
Re: (Score:2)
You've apparently been drinking far too much of Lotus' kool-aid. Yes, Notes can do lots of databasey things. But, let's be honest here. No matter how much Notes infrastructure your company tries to put in place, well over 90% of most users' experience with it is email. Lotus simply needs to understand that.
I really wish Lotus would get this concept through their heads. I don't care HOW much they try to sell its other "features" (which now directly compete against ... WEB APPLICATIONS!), if they can't g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think its incredible that they wont let people download their own email client. The vendor of the phone shouldnt even have this power. Email clients are basic functionality. Installing your own doesnt hurt Apple in any way. Typical Apple: run by short-sighted MBAs. Im so glad I didnt give in to the iphone madness. WM isnt sexy but it runs everything.
+1 for actually reading the article before posting (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.
Parent is NOT a troll... (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot understand the reason why the parent is a troll. The "application" in this case is a web application, not a native installed application.
The post, states clearly:
"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."
Which is wrong. I cannot see that the parent is a "troll". IT could even be argued the actual Slashdot post is a troll (patent lie, followed by a heated "angle" to start a flamewar)
Parent
IBM (Score:2, Insightful)
IBM has more influence with Apple than Joe Random Developer. What a surprise ...
Actually, it's quite the opposite (Score:2, Informative)
That's not what I've read... (Score:5, 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...
Parent
IBM not on the AppStore, just a webapp. (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.
Lotus what? (Score:2, Insightful)
1-2-3?
And your point is??? (Score:2)
.
There certainly seems to be a lot of whining by a vocal few who feel entitled to access to the iPhone. I especially enjoy the whining of people who have their apps disallowed. The reasons for the app rejection were well known, if only they had read the developers' agreement with Apple that they had agreed to before they started developing their apps.
It is a law of nature that (Score:2)
Any justifiable limit on freedom will be adapted to unjustifiable purposes for which it was not originally intended.
There is a legitimate justification for denying developers unrestricted freedom to publish iPhone apps: It keeps consumers safe from malicious applications.
Now that after the policy of denying freedom to publish has been established, for that legitimate purpose, it is adapted to the illegitimate purposes of restraining competition and playing favorites.
Notes isn't an email client (Score:2)
Notes email client isn't even a *good* email client.
Notes is more like a browser for a weird mainframe version of the web, based on copying and synchronizing databases. It's like what you'd have gotten if OSI networking and IBM mainframes had been the basis of the world wide web.
Notes is not a competitor (Score:2, Funny)
As anyone who has been forced to use Notes will tell you.
Lotus is a brand, not a product (Score:5, Insightful)
Lotus is a brand, not a product. As far as I know, the product IBM Lotus is releasing for the iPhone is iNotes, the webmail interface to a Lotus Domino mail server. This isn't a Notes client for the iPhone.
Bad Summary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it too much to ask that people who complain about inaccurate Slashdot summaries actually RTFA so they don't also make the same mistakes as the summarizer?
Clue: Apple didn't need to approve anything because the iPhone Notes client is a web application.
not the same (Score:2)
It is annoying that apple will just not allow any app that is not malicious, but I haven't seen a case where something useful (other than voip and other things that ATT will not allow) has been banned.
This stuff is almost dupes (Score:2)
Apple still evil. [today.com] FairPlay-encrypted H.264 video at 11.
But it is IBM, not a no name competitor (Score:4, Funny)
Also whoever thinks Lotus notes has a better UI than any mail app, is insane in my opinion. People use Lotus notes because they have to by corporate policy. When they add it to their i-phones, it is not going to replace the use of mailapp by no means, with the exception of 3 masochistic i-phone owners. Whereas the addition of a better functioning maill front end, might force Apple to revisit theor own mail app, which means money out of Steve the conman's pocket. It is intolerable...
Since when is Notes a viable e-mail client? (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry to say this but I don't think Lotus Notes should be considered a viable e-mail client.
I know this sounds like a troll, but I have to use it every day, and honestly trying to get raw e-mail source is a chore that no one should have to ever do.
This decision for Apple however does contradict the position for the so called small developer that had their app banned for competing.
ooh goody... (Score:2, Funny)
That means I can get my nice shiny super slick iPhone running a cluncky UI from the early 90's. Where's the install button?
Just hope they didn't forget the "Internet-Style Forward" option.
"Recently [Apple] killed a developer" (Score:3, Funny)
I'm definitely switching to Linux now...
WTF Slashdot?!?!!? (Score:3)
Seems funny that this "story" is being presented the way that it is. Lotus Notes on an iPhone is a web app through the browser, this has absolutely nothing to do with the App Store, as is implied by the twit writing the story about the article. Apple has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing Lotus Notes to run since it's not an app in the app store.
More fucking hate...
You would still need a VPN tunneler (Score:3, Informative)
Notes is a great platform for corporate apps. But any corp worth their salt is running their remote users through a VPN tunnel of some kind. So you'd need to run that tunnel or VPN dialer or tokenized app on the iPhone as well.
Re:And the reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe it's because it's not a product being sold in the iPhone App Store, it's just a web application they point Safari at.
Parent
Re:And the reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gah. That's what I get for believing a Slashdot summary. :^P
Parent
Re:And the reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hence, it's entirely out of Apple's control, hence this is entirely non-news (just incase anyone was curious what the significance of this is).
Parent
Re:And the reason is... (Score:4, Insightful)
A single bug in Safari for iPhone can prevent it from running and all Apple has to say is "oops". As it doesn't even allow other browsers like Opera, you will be in big trouble.
iPhone is not a business device as long as it is run by a fascistic policy. I pity the businesses who buys Apple's claims with 2-3 poster child apps and I _run_ everything on OS X/XServe.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you honestly expect every business to write something as vital and complex as a Notes/GroupWise/Citadel/... client on their own, when they can just buy another hanset (like a BlackBerry) that handles them out of the box? Especially for such a petty reason as "duplicating built-in functionality"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are 5-6 competing third party and official apps exist on Symbian for things you mention. They update and enhance even monthly since there is a huge, healthy competition where you can show the finger to Nokia's own mail client and use a third party client as default.
If I tell you there are 3-4 different titles (recently that famous windows one) to display PDF from free to commercial, you can easily guess the competition.
I am all for competition and freedom unless it dangers my security. Symbian and sad
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you think IBM which is in size of a country would get same treatment as that poor freeware coder?
Re:And the reason is... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no grounds for comparing the app that was banned (essentially a Gmail front end as an app) and "allowing" iNotes ultralite that is actually a web page on your Notes/Domino server. This is just bad journalism on behalf of NY Times and seconded here.
Also - apple "allows" gmail web front end on iphone just exactly the same way it "allows" iNotes ultralite.
Parent
Re:And the reason is... (Score:4, Funny)
There is no grounds for comparing the app that was banned (essentially a Gmail front end as an app) and "allowing" iNotes ultralite that is actually a web page on your Notes/Domino server. This is just bad journalism on behalf of NY Times and seconded here.
Also - apple "allows" gmail web front end on iphone just exactly the same way it "allows" iNotes ultralite.
Did you hear? I just found out that they are also allowing slashdot and digg! This is great!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And the reason is... (Score:5, Interesting)
it could also be that Lotus sucks, so Apple's app has no real competition. (yes, i HAVE to use lotus at work)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's conceivable that it violates their agreement with AT&T (or one or more of the other carriers). AT&T was probably nervous about the unlimited data plan, and it would make sense for the contract to restrict the types of programs that can access the network.
Re: (Score:2)
and in europe?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is blocking every potential "iTunes store" competitor in fact. If you look to all that SDK madness, Flash not being included, no Java (even if Sun codes free) and "no apps can interpret".
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're referring to the notes, which is a groupware platform capable of email, calendering, workflow management etc. Kind of like Exchange and Sharepoint.
Except they're not. It's just a web front end to Notes.
It would be interesting though,because Notes was a highly secure system for doing these things back before the Internet was in widespread use. Even though it ran on primitive platforms, it included features like two factor security, digital signatures, robust encryption for communication a
Re: (Score:2)
"does anyone actually choose to use Lotus"
if refering to IBM i reallllllllllllly doubt it
but this Lotus i would be happy to choose to use - if someone else doesn't mind paying for it http://www.lotuscars.com/ [lotuscars.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)