Apple Allows Lotus On iPhone (After Banning Competitor) 150
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."
And the reason is... (Score:1, Insightful)
IBM can actually fight back.
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.
IBM (Score:2, Insightful)
IBM has more influence with Apple than Joe Random Developer. What a surprise ...
Lotus what? (Score:2, Insightful)
1-2-3?
Re:And the reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gah. That's what I get for believing a Slashdot summary. :^P
Re:Withdraw this article before it's too late! (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple interprets choice as damage and routes around it.
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.
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 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)
Re:well, yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
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.
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.
Re:Sure it is (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:And the reason is... (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 sadly Windows mobile provides it. iPhone doesn't. You can't even get more secure on iPhone since antivirus or firewall is practically impossible. Nobody will spare millions to develop a security solution which customer will have to hack their device to install it. Thanks to Apple for the absurdity in my previous sentence :)