Apple Invites(apple.com)
apple.com
Apple Invites
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/introducing-apple-invites-a-new-app-that-brings-people-together/
955 comments
I think Apple already has claimed the "friends and family network" via iMessage. Did Facebook go to a groups/influencer algorithm by choice or is it the result of IRL friend posters all moving to private chats once everyone got iPhones?
Everytime iMessage is mentioned, I do a double take because it is almost non existent here in Turkey. And from what I hear, seems like most Europeans do not use it too.
WhatsApp has like 99.9% market share here and I assume it is a lot bigger than anything else in the EU too.
I wonder why is that though. Everyone around me has an iPhone basically and I haven’t received a blue bubble in years. The messages app is not even on my home screen.
WhatsApp has like 99.9% market share here and I assume it is a lot bigger than anything else in the EU too.
I wonder why is that though. Everyone around me has an iPhone basically and I haven’t received a blue bubble in years. The messages app is not even on my home screen.
As I understand it, many Americans (and all iPhones?) had unlimited-SMS phone plans circa 2009. So the pay-per-message economic conditions that caused many Europeans, etc., to switch to WhatsApp back in the day didn't do anything in the USA.
Then when the same iPhone app seamlessly started sending iMessages (blue bubbles) to other iPhones rather than SMS (green bubbles), people just kept using that.
Then when the same iPhone app seamlessly started sending iMessages (blue bubbles) to other iPhones rather than SMS (green bubbles), people just kept using that.
This is definitely what happened in Brazil.
When Whatsapp launched, SMS still wasn't free, the exception being some carriers that offered "free" SMS to numbers of the same carrier if the sender was on a premium coverage plan. In sum, majority of the population was still paying $0,10-$0,20 despite already having data plans. So it was an easy win for WhatsApp.
When Whatsapp launched, SMS still wasn't free, the exception being some carriers that offered "free" SMS to numbers of the same carrier if the sender was on a premium coverage plan. In sum, majority of the population was still paying $0,10-$0,20 despite already having data plans. So it was an easy win for WhatsApp.
>> So the pay-per-message economic conditions that caused many Europeans, etc., to switch to WhatsApp back in the day didn't do anything in the USA.
I see this listed as the reason often but I had unlimited SMS then too. In fact I remember visiting the US in 2009 and I was charged to send AND receive an SMS which was a shock.
I think the actual reason is that communication across borders in Europe is very common and those SMS's were not included in the unlimited plans as they were messages abroad. So they were subject to fees (usually high ones). I think this is the reason it was common - especially given how common it is for students to study 'abroad' in other European countries. There were a few competing apps for this at the time (Vibr I think was another but was more call focussed) but WhatsApp won in the end.
I see this listed as the reason often but I had unlimited SMS then too. In fact I remember visiting the US in 2009 and I was charged to send AND receive an SMS which was a shock.
I think the actual reason is that communication across borders in Europe is very common and those SMS's were not included in the unlimited plans as they were messages abroad. So they were subject to fees (usually high ones). I think this is the reason it was common - especially given how common it is for students to study 'abroad' in other European countries. There were a few competing apps for this at the time (Vibr I think was another but was more call focussed) but WhatsApp won in the end.
>> So the pay-per-message economic conditions that caused many Europeans, etc., to switch to WhatsApp back in the day
> I think the actual reason is that communication across borders in Europe is very common and those SMS's were not included in the unlimited plans as they were messages abroad. So they were subject to fees (usually high ones).
So, you completely agree with what you seem to be taking issue with.
> I think the actual reason is that communication across borders in Europe is very common and those SMS's were not included in the unlimited plans as they were messages abroad. So they were subject to fees (usually high ones).
So, you completely agree with what you seem to be taking issue with.
Yepp, this is my theory too. When you live in a country with friends 2 hours away by car in a totally different country, paying extra for "long distance" is absurd when tools exist to communicate with no extra fees.
Viber is alive and well nowadays and is the dominant messaging app in quite a few geographies. Given that Facebook Messenger seems to also have about the same MAU as WhatsApp (and seems to be dominant in the US), I don't think you can say any one of those "won".
>> Viber is alive and well nowadays and is the dominant messaging app in quite a few geographies
Interesting! I haven't heard mention of Viber since around 2011. When I said WhatsApp 'won' I meant that wherever I have been in Europe WhatsApp seems to be in use by people and by businesses. It's almost accepted you'll have an account and used as an alternative to email/phone numbers. I understand global MAU may show a different reality and certain locales may still be dominated by other platforms.
Interesting! I haven't heard mention of Viber since around 2011. When I said WhatsApp 'won' I meant that wherever I have been in Europe WhatsApp seems to be in use by people and by businesses. It's almost accepted you'll have an account and used as an alternative to email/phone numbers. I understand global MAU may show a different reality and certain locales may still be dominated by other platforms.
Same, I’m not even European, but literally everyone uses WhatsApp for everything where I live, iPhones or not.
The only thing I get in my Messages app is verification codes and spam.
I don’t think I got a single SMS/iMessage from a human in the last 5 years.
The only thing I get in my Messages app is verification codes and spam.
I don’t think I got a single SMS/iMessage from a human in the last 5 years.
> Everyone around me has an iPhone
You may be in a bubble.
Huawei and other Chinese phones are not banned in the EU. So you can get your hands on 100€ to 200€ smartphones which are more than enough for most people. Hence a lot less iPhones (but a ton more spywares).
You may be in a bubble.
Huawei and other Chinese phones are not banned in the EU. So you can get your hands on 100€ to 200€ smartphones which are more than enough for most people. Hence a lot less iPhones (but a ton more spywares).
Can also report WhatsApp has 100% of the backpackers meeting each other market.
That's only true if everyone in the group has an Apple phone, which has decreasing probability with every additional member. Excluding people from a conversation because they don't have the right brand of phone would be pretty antisocial.
Unfortunately it happens all the time in my friends circle, and it's for technical not anti-social reasons. Group texts that include Android users are so buggy that they tend to die out, whereas iMessage-only groups tend to be long lasting. For this reason we use WhatsApp for the core group chat, but there's still a ton of side-conversations and meme-ing in iMessage groups.
>> For this reason we use WhatsApp for the core group chat, but there's still a ton of side-conversations and meme-ing in iMessage groups.
I don't understand why you would use two chat systems when you know one is excluding some friends? Why not just centralise on WhatsApp which you're already using? Serious question. I can understand why switching is a big ask but when you're already using the multi-platform option part of the time switching back and forth seems unnecessary and inconvenient.
I don't understand why you would use two chat systems when you know one is excluding some friends? Why not just centralise on WhatsApp which you're already using? Serious question. I can understand why switching is a big ask but when you're already using the multi-platform option part of the time switching back and forth seems unnecessary and inconvenient.
Because the majority of my communication is already in iMessage and I don't want to bother with another app. I also by default opt out of any Zuckerberg operations that I can, they get enough of my data without me having an account on any of their platforms as is.
In the USA, someone insisting on using an Android when everyone else in their social circle has an iPhone (and they do!) is what's seen as anti-social. No one wants to use the degraded green bubble SMS experience so they simply exclude the Android user and continue using blue bubble iMessage.
I have never ever seen this. If your "friends" treat you badly because of your phone choice, they are not really your friends. Also, iMessage is not that great. It's nice but it is not amazing like some people make it out to be.
I totally agree with you, but it's pretty obvious why this behaviour exists. At the end of the day, a cell phone is as much a status symbol, something akin to the clothes you wear, as much as it is an actual phone. Would you potentially lower your opinion of someone wearing a strange piece of clothing? The principle is exactly the same.
Happens a lot with adolescents. They can be quite exclusionary.
I'll do you one better: in this specific situation, the antisocial buck stops at the friend group who doesn't all chip in and buy their Android friend a "keep in touch" iPhone.
But the point remains that a cynical UX/technical/business decision that does not need to be so is rending real relationships between actual people. If Tim Cook had the power to render anyone who didn't pay him $400+ mute to their friends and family through some sort of black magic, we'd call him a comic book supervillain.
But the point remains that a cynical UX/technical/business decision that does not need to be so is rending real relationships between actual people. If Tim Cook had the power to render anyone who didn't pay him $400+ mute to their friends and family through some sort of black magic, we'd call him a comic book supervillain.
I bought an Android specifically so I don't have to use an iPhone, speaking as a former iPhone user. "Friends" chipping in to buy me an iPhone isn't something I'd actually want.
Honestly, if your "friend" group is willing to exclude you because you're not using a particular brand of cell phone, then I have some bad news for you: They might not really be great friends.
This is not really true since RCS launched. It does most of what people care about. Everyone sees Emojis and a few other special Fx and videos and pictures now look good for everyone and don't get nerfed as soon as one user is on Android.
Maybe RCS doesn't do all the esoteric iMessage stuff but it doesn't necessarily have to, half those extra features are gatekeeped on having the latest iPhone or whatever and so they don't get used as often.
Maybe RCS doesn't do all the esoteric iMessage stuff but it doesn't necessarily have to, half those extra features are gatekeeped on having the latest iPhone or whatever and so they don't get used as often.
This is potentially true; I've noticed green-bubble chats are much less annoying in the last year. Do they send over Wifi now? That was also a killer iMessage feature on trips with bad cell coverage.
It surprises me people who actually have this problem don't just switch to a different messaging app. There are many, and the effort required is minimal.
It's called a network effect for a reason. People don't want to use multiple apps so they generally will want all of their friends to be using the same app. Switching to a different app for one friend group adds significant friction.
This is why we need legally mandated interopability for call communications platforms above a certain size. It's absurd that the situation today is worse than the early 2000's where you could use one program to talk to your ICQ, MSN and Aim friends.
This is why we need legally mandated interopability for call communications platforms above a certain size. It's absurd that the situation today is worse than the early 2000's where you could use one program to talk to your ICQ, MSN and Aim friends.
Hell yeah.
Before there was the pandemic and 'Zoom Fatigue' there were other applications such as Skype, Google Meet, WebEx, Go2Meeting and many more that went through a variation of Doctorow's 'enshittification cycle' although it isn't so much that these became commercially exploitative but rather the honeymoon period ended.
If, for instance I want you to try a new "meeting" program your response is likely to be "this could be such a hassle" and the vendor has a strong incentive to make it work well so I can say, "Remember how well Skype used to work ten years ago? Zoom is like that now". In that early phase the vendor invests in quality, once it has an established user base it is 'competing' on the basis of dominance of a two sided market and there isn't any need to invest in quality. (In fact, investors insist on disinvestment because they want to take profits after years of losses.) Eventually it gets so bad that even the two sided market dominance can't save them anymore and a new competitor comes in.
If chat and messaging programs were interoperable, vendors would be competing on quality instead of relying on two-sided market dominance, and we'd have seen the user experience improve rapidly and dramatically over the past 20 years instead of going sideways. I mean, "remember how good ICQ was?"
Before there was the pandemic and 'Zoom Fatigue' there were other applications such as Skype, Google Meet, WebEx, Go2Meeting and many more that went through a variation of Doctorow's 'enshittification cycle' although it isn't so much that these became commercially exploitative but rather the honeymoon period ended.
If, for instance I want you to try a new "meeting" program your response is likely to be "this could be such a hassle" and the vendor has a strong incentive to make it work well so I can say, "Remember how well Skype used to work ten years ago? Zoom is like that now". In that early phase the vendor invests in quality, once it has an established user base it is 'competing' on the basis of dominance of a two sided market and there isn't any need to invest in quality. (In fact, investors insist on disinvestment because they want to take profits after years of losses.) Eventually it gets so bad that even the two sided market dominance can't save them anymore and a new competitor comes in.
If chat and messaging programs were interoperable, vendors would be competing on quality instead of relying on two-sided market dominance, and we'd have seen the user experience improve rapidly and dramatically over the past 20 years instead of going sideways. I mean, "remember how good ICQ was?"
Sounds like those people weren't good friends anyways. What kind of friends exclude you for petty shit like this?
Unless you're a teen in the USA.
Non-iPhone users are the minority in this demographic (<= 13%), see my demographic comment elsewhere for this subject.
Non-iPhone users are the minority in this demographic (<= 13%), see my demographic comment elsewhere for this subject.
I'm still waiting for iMessage to work with Android phones.
iMessage has been compatible with RCS for months now.
Except if you’re on Google Fi, right?
https://isgooglefircsyet.com/
https://isgooglefircsyet.com/
That is ironic, given how the whole push to get Apple to support RCS came from google in the first place. They had that website with the open letter to try and tell Apple that supporting RCS was in everyone’s best interest and would enable Apple and Android users to be on even footing, etc etc.
But then oops, turns out Google’s on wireless service doesn’t even support it. Maybe google didn’t think Apple would call their bluff?
But then oops, turns out Google’s on wireless service doesn’t even support it. Maybe google didn’t think Apple would call their bluff?
Google stole Microsoft's position of "arrogant company that just doesn't get it". What I found about Google comms product was that they worked the worst on slow internet connections of any product. Back when I had 2 Mbps or worse DSL, I could get on meetings with anything that wasn't Google Hangouts, Google Talk, Google Meet, etc. It's like it was with Docker Hub, which had low timeouts that made it impossible for me to actually download images to install anything substantial.
That, plus other little slights like only buying high-quality aerial photos of upstate NY years after Microsoft did left me feeling that Google saw me as a non-person because I didn't live in the bay area, NYC, LA or DC.
That, plus other little slights like only buying high-quality aerial photos of upstate NY years after Microsoft did left me feeling that Google saw me as a non-person because I didn't live in the bay area, NYC, LA or DC.
A quick search suggests the Android user end needs to install 3rd party apps for it to work? Has that changed recently?
Usually you actually need to not use third party apps. RCS on Android is usually restricted to Google Messages (or maybe Samsungs built in messages app). Everyone else got the boot
You also sometimes have to enable in the settings for Android Messages (and have a supported carrier). iMessage also has an option to enable RCS but I believe its on by default in the newer versions of iOS
You also sometimes have to enable in the settings for Android Messages (and have a supported carrier). iMessage also has an option to enable RCS but I believe its on by default in the newer versions of iOS
Hmm ok so it doesn't actually work :(
Even if it worked with 3rd party apps, at that point why not install something like Signal.
Even if it worked with 3rd party apps, at that point why not install something like Signal.
I don't know, I haven't used Android in quite a few years, but it was my understanding that it was in Google's default SMS app. When I got iOS 18, all of my texts to Android users switched automatically to RCS, so they didn't have to do anything.
I wrote an "SMS" to the previous tenant of my new flat recently and it got seamlessly upgraded to rcs. With me on an android and them on an iPhone. This was using Google messages, which was the default on my zenfone for sms
My friend group chat was suddenly RCS after updating iOS today and it’s great - no more “So and so liked ‘the entire message body’” messages, we all just see the thumbs up reaction
> I think Apple already has claimed the "friends and family network" via iMessage.
All the family/friends group chats I am in are WhatsApp.
I use iMessage every day for 1-to-1 messaging but I don’t really view it as distinct from SMS.
For international communication, even 1-on-1 tends to be WhatsApp.
All the family/friends group chats I am in are WhatsApp.
I use iMessage every day for 1-to-1 messaging but I don’t really view it as distinct from SMS.
For international communication, even 1-on-1 tends to be WhatsApp.
Nobody I know uses iMessage.
In the US, using iMessage involves flipping a switch in some Messages setting--and everyone I know in the US just texts, except for texting with international folks.
Quick note that I'm in the US and my experience is: most random people use SMS; closer friends and family some use Signal, some Discord, some email; colleagues use Slack; overseas taxi drivers etc. use WhatsApp.
By "use SMS" you surely mean "use iMessage" much of the time.
If op is on android they wont know who uses imessage
Nobody uses iMessage in Spain. People swear by Zuck's spyware
iMessage is dead/dying. WhatsApp is killing it.
At this point even my American groups have become largely WhatsApp because Android exists.
At this point even my American groups have become largely WhatsApp because Android exists.
Brilliant? Launching an app for creating events that requires you to 1) own an iDevice and 2) pay into, just to create events?
I'll send an email for free, thankyouverymuch.
I'll send an email for free, thankyouverymuch.
This obviously offers more than just sending an email. And since the majority of Apple users aren't very tech savvy, I can see this catching on quickly.
> 1) own an iDevice
You do not need to own an Apple device to either create events or join events.
> I'll send an email for free, thankyouverymuch.
This seems fine! There are open protocols (email, ics) if they work for you, but Apple specifically developed this in a way to neither require an Apple device or Apple Account to interact. Which is better than some of the competitors! (Facebook and Google tend to create social tools which explicitly require everyone to have accounts.)
You do not need to own an Apple device to either create events or join events.
> I'll send an email for free, thankyouverymuch.
This seems fine! There are open protocols (email, ics) if they work for you, but Apple specifically developed this in a way to neither require an Apple device or Apple Account to interact. Which is better than some of the competitors! (Facebook and Google tend to create social tools which explicitly require everyone to have accounts.)
> You do not need to own an Apple device to either create events
You need an "iCloud+" account to create, though. Which I as a non-apple user have no idea what is, and probably is useless for me to pay for not using anything apple beforehand.
You need an "iCloud+" account to create, though. Which I as a non-apple user have no idea what is, and probably is useless for me to pay for not using anything apple beforehand.
The first line of their press release:
> Apple today introduced Apple Invites, a new app for iPhone
If Android users have to login to a website to use this, what's the appeal? There are hundreds of simple meeting/event webapps out there, many not even requiring authentication.
> Apple today introduced Apple Invites, a new app for iPhone
If Android users have to login to a website to use this, what's the appeal? There are hundreds of simple meeting/event webapps out there, many not even requiring authentication.
> If Android users have to login to a website to use this, what's the appeal?
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to use this. It just was pointing out you don't need Apple accounts or devices to participate opposed to something like Facebook events.
> There are hundreds of simple meeting/event webapps out there
Okay? Go crazy using those! But don't claim that this requires an Apple device to create or join events (like the OP I was responding to). And don't claim that this requires an Apple Account to join events (like many other commentators are).
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to use this. It just was pointing out you don't need Apple accounts or devices to participate opposed to something like Facebook events.
> There are hundreds of simple meeting/event webapps out there
Okay? Go crazy using those! But don't claim that this requires an Apple device to create or join events (like the OP I was responding to). And don't claim that this requires an Apple Account to join events (like many other commentators are).
Likely doesn't need to be said, but if you are organizing parties with emails, you're probably not the target user base of this feature.
For the younger folks who organize their parties by texting (iMessages, Whatsapp, Telefram, etc), this can be enticing.
For the younger folks who organize their parties by texting (iMessages, Whatsapp, Telefram, etc), this can be enticing.
[deleted]
While I agree with your points in principle, the paywall may act as a way for them to handle spam/misuse more effectively
The problem is that by vendor-locking these services to Apple users, they create an environment that alienates non-Apple users. If they want to truly claim the friends & family network, they need to remember that everyone has friends & family that aren't in the Apple ecosystem.
So long as Facebook remains available to everyone, even if the content feed is a mess, the event planning space is going to be more accessible to everyone and will end up being the defacto friends & family ecosystem.
I'm not an iCloud+ member, so I can't go in an look for myself, but ideally this would be just a fancy way of extending your iCloud Calendar invites where Gmail, Outlook, etc. users can still create events and invite people in roughly the same way. If as a Linux & Android user I am only able to RSVP to Apple users' invites, but I am never able to invite them to anything myself, then I literally cannot embrace this product without investing considerable money into their hardware, which I am not going to do.
Hell, if they featureset was compelling enough, and they had an iCloud app for non-Apple hardware platforms, I might actually consider being an iCloud+ member, but I guess it's not worth it to Apple to collect a monthly payment from me if I won't make the downpayment on an iPhone and a Macbook...
So long as Facebook remains available to everyone, even if the content feed is a mess, the event planning space is going to be more accessible to everyone and will end up being the defacto friends & family ecosystem.
I'm not an iCloud+ member, so I can't go in an look for myself, but ideally this would be just a fancy way of extending your iCloud Calendar invites where Gmail, Outlook, etc. users can still create events and invite people in roughly the same way. If as a Linux & Android user I am only able to RSVP to Apple users' invites, but I am never able to invite them to anything myself, then I literally cannot embrace this product without investing considerable money into their hardware, which I am not going to do.
Hell, if they featureset was compelling enough, and they had an iCloud app for non-Apple hardware platforms, I might actually consider being an iCloud+ member, but I guess it's not worth it to Apple to collect a monthly payment from me if I won't make the downpayment on an iPhone and a Macbook...
> So long as Facebook remains available to everyone, even if the content feed is a mess, the event planning space is going to be more accessible to everyone and will end up being the defacto friends & family ecosystem.
For now. We're in the process of seeing Twitter die like every other social network has died before it, Facebook will have it's time as well.
For now. We're in the process of seeing Twitter die like every other social network has died before it, Facebook will have it's time as well.
Undoubtedly. I agree 100%. I still think that Apple needs to consider how accessible Facebook is/was if they want to produce a product capable of replacing any part of it.
> So long as Facebook remains available to everyone
This is not a given even today. Creating a new Facebook account involves a ton of scrutiny, you need to upload an ID, and until your account is older and established it’s likely that anything you do can get auto-scanned by some spam bot and get you banned for using some keyword, even in private chats.
I don’t have a Facebook account but I needed to create one a few years back to use my oculus quest (this is before they finally came to their senses and separated the accounts) and I had a lot of trouble convincing FB that I was a real human.
This is not a given even today. Creating a new Facebook account involves a ton of scrutiny, you need to upload an ID, and until your account is older and established it’s likely that anything you do can get auto-scanned by some spam bot and get you banned for using some keyword, even in private chats.
I don’t have a Facebook account but I needed to create one a few years back to use my oculus quest (this is before they finally came to their senses and separated the accounts) and I had a lot of trouble convincing FB that I was a real human.
I had a Facebook account long ago, deleted it (and my Twitter and my LinkedIn) both because I thought social media was going crazy and because LinkedIn had personally brought ruin into my life.
Recently I made a new Facebook account to go with my Quest 3 VR headset. I don't find too much appealing about Facebook, posted a little, haven't used it much. I wanted to make an Instagram account because I want to post flower and sports photographs, really inoffensive stuff that would do well on the platform. Whenever I try to create an Instagram account, linked to my Facebook account or not, I get a message saying there was an error and I should try again later but later never comes.
Talking to support about it gets no response. I don't know if my history of deleting my account long ago is the cause or if it is something else.
A person I know who committed a misdemeanor is now on probation and one term of his probation is that he stay off social media, though he can use ordinary web sites. I saw a poster for a board game club which is exactly the kind of community activity that his probation officer would approve of, but the only information on the sign is the title and a QR code that points to... A Facebook group. There are plenty of other people who choose not to use Facebook for various reasons who are also excluded by this.
---
The world badly needs something to support community organizations because of the problems pointed out in this movie based on Robert Putnam's work:
https://www.joinordiefilm.com/
It's not difficult to approach this as a startup, but it is a devilishly hard problem to sustain it without being attached to something toxic like personalization-based advertising. There are plenty of foundations which could afford to fund this kind of effort (e.g. you could kill it at $1M a year if you weren't paying Bay Area wages and didn't have nonprofit bloat) but if anything the ability to fill out the paperwork from grants is inversely proportional to being able to execute on this sort of thing.
Recently I made a new Facebook account to go with my Quest 3 VR headset. I don't find too much appealing about Facebook, posted a little, haven't used it much. I wanted to make an Instagram account because I want to post flower and sports photographs, really inoffensive stuff that would do well on the platform. Whenever I try to create an Instagram account, linked to my Facebook account or not, I get a message saying there was an error and I should try again later but later never comes.
Talking to support about it gets no response. I don't know if my history of deleting my account long ago is the cause or if it is something else.
A person I know who committed a misdemeanor is now on probation and one term of his probation is that he stay off social media, though he can use ordinary web sites. I saw a poster for a board game club which is exactly the kind of community activity that his probation officer would approve of, but the only information on the sign is the title and a QR code that points to... A Facebook group. There are plenty of other people who choose not to use Facebook for various reasons who are also excluded by this.
---
The world badly needs something to support community organizations because of the problems pointed out in this movie based on Robert Putnam's work:
https://www.joinordiefilm.com/
It's not difficult to approach this as a startup, but it is a devilishly hard problem to sustain it without being attached to something toxic like personalization-based advertising. There are plenty of foundations which could afford to fund this kind of effort (e.g. you could kill it at $1M a year if you weren't paying Bay Area wages and didn't have nonprofit bloat) but if anything the ability to fill out the paperwork from grants is inversely proportional to being able to execute on this sort of thing.
> Hell, if they featureset was compelling enough, and they had an iCloud app for non-Apple hardware platforms, I might actually consider being an iCloud+ member, but I guess it's not worth it to Apple to collect a monthly payment from me if I won't make the downpayment on an iPhone and a Macbook...
You can create events from the web iCloud interface without an Apple device.
You can create events from the web iCloud interface without an Apple device.
>If they want to truly claim the friends & family network, they need to remember that everyone has friends & family that aren't in the Apple ecosystem.
They are completely aware of it an actively leverage it to use your friends and family against you to force you into Apple's ecosystem. It's the main reason why Android will have to get pretty bad before I bend to such incredibly dirty tactics.
They are completely aware of it an actively leverage it to use your friends and family against you to force you into Apple's ecosystem. It's the main reason why Android will have to get pretty bad before I bend to such incredibly dirty tactics.
I'm not convinced they're leaving a lot of money on the table by pitching a free app at a billion iPhone users vs. the famously lucrative Linux desktop market.
Group texts and shared albums (iPhoto or Google photo if you have androids in the mix) are most of my social interaction already..
This is what it's been for me as well, for several years— all meaningful friend-group interactions are now taking place in group chats, sadly this is entirely in Whatsapp and FB Messenger for me; would love if there was a reasonable migration path to getting these interactions entirely off of Meta properties.
Group text works cross platform now.. some friend groups are on discord
I'd argue WhatsApp is better positioned (globally).
WhatsApp being owned by Meta likely detracts from this though.
Apple and Meta's wet dream is exclusionary friends and family networks tied to their future AR hardware. Half the people at the Christmas party pointing and zooming around an AR globe to talk about their travels and the other half with the wrong brand not able to see anything. Maybe they just place the virtual globe on top of one of them and completely block them out to get more space since they aren't seeming relevant.
What happens in 10-15 years more, I wonder? Will Apple stay the respectable, trustworthy company they are today?
My wife is in a position (board chair for a co-op) that results in her sending out a lot of invites to events. Evite has kinda been the go-to in her social/co-op group for ages, but man it suuuuuuucks these days. Ads everywhere, annoying patterns, and lacks a bunch of nice features that this seems to have.
Very happy to see this
Very happy to see this
I organize a lot of events for a rugby team, and our events are now all on Partiful.
Maybe it'll go downhill like Evite and Facebook Events - but for now it's quite good.
Maybe it'll go downhill like Evite and Facebook Events - but for now it's quite good.
How is it funded? That is your answer.
Currently Partiful doesn't generate revenue, which is evidence for its quality. As soon as the purse strings get attached, it'll be time to get out. But for now, it's an excellent service.
This tracks so well as an indicator, with many other products. As soon as the company starts making money, their product is going to become awful and it's time to find an alternative. Why can't tech escape this cycle?
Because there’s always someone willing to lose money by offering a free product without the undesirable stuff in the hope that they can acquire customers to mine for cash later
The key here is VC-backed. The enshittification rate of bootstrapped products (especially solo or small team) is magnitudes lower. Ironic thing to say while on YC's message board, but there you have it.
Nowadays when I'm looking for a new software product or service with a good number of options, first thing I do is check how they're funded.
Funny thing is that teams are catching on to this! Very recently I've seen two products have a separate "Are you VC backed?" heading in their landing FAQ (both answered with "no"). I can see this becoming a trend - if I were to create a product, I'd do the same.
Nowadays when I'm looking for a new software product or service with a good number of options, first thing I do is check how they're funded.
Funny thing is that teams are catching on to this! Very recently I've seen two products have a separate "Are you VC backed?" heading in their landing FAQ (both answered with "no"). I can see this becoming a trend - if I were to create a product, I'd do the same.
Nice one, I'll add it to our Apple Invites, open source competitor readme: http://github.com/gruprsvp/grup
imo the most likely scenario is that they never charge and are acquired by Facebook.
In exchange, FB gets access into your offline graph: people you interact IRL but not on social media. They can approximate relationships through Plus 1 invites.
Work in an instagram component for sharing photos / albums / reels from an event. You’re pumping right back into the FOMOmachine.
In exchange, FB gets access into your offline graph: people you interact IRL but not on social media. They can approximate relationships through Plus 1 invites.
Work in an instagram component for sharing photos / albums / reels from an event. You’re pumping right back into the FOMOmachine.
Because every way, say, the Partiful devs could ask for $3/mo for months you post parties (like Kagi’s new pricing) is gated by payment providers that will either take 30¢ of every dollar, be expensive to implement, or provide a bad experience for users.
It has. Apple escaped this cycle. Their software is great. Instead of you being the product, you buy the product. People then just complain the product is expensive. On this website, I roll my eyes.
Apple stuff has always been expensive, and never once has Apple justified raising the price because they're 'privacy friendly'.
Apple has a multi-billion dollar ads business. You are still the product, even if the execution isn't as brazenly anti-consumer as Google and Facebook.
Apple has a multi-billion dollar ads business. You are still the product, even if the execution isn't as brazenly anti-consumer as Google and Facebook.
> never once has Apple justified raising the price because they're 'privacy friendly'.
No, but they have made privacy a key selling point of their platform and communicated that clearly to customers.
Just because they never have formally stated “oh and by the way this increases the price of our products by X/unit”, doesn’t mean that feature isn’t included in the cost.
No, but they have made privacy a key selling point of their platform and communicated that clearly to customers.
Just because they never have formally stated “oh and by the way this increases the price of our products by X/unit”, doesn’t mean that feature isn’t included in the cost.
Agreed - If you want good products, you should support the people who create them. That means paying. If you want a privacy destroying enshitified product, keep using "free" products.
This isn't so simple. I love a lot of apps but I'm not willing to pay a monthly or yearly sub. I'll give you $5-$250 but I won't give you $5 a month.
Well then you won't get maintenance or support. People need to eat long-term, not just once.
I want nice things, zero cost and complete privacy without adverts. Why is this so hard?
/s
/s
It's pretty easy actually - most open source software fits the bill. Quality software can be pretty cheap to make per user.
The only problem is services where hosting costs need to be paid somehow and network effects mean that for-profit competition will win the market even if the product is inevitably enshittified. Doesn't matter how good your open and community funded event platform is if Apple and Facebook can afford to shove their solution in front of everyone you want to interact with.
The only problem is services where hosting costs need to be paid somehow and network effects mean that for-profit competition will win the market even if the product is inevitably enshittified. Doesn't matter how good your open and community funded event platform is if Apple and Facebook can afford to shove their solution in front of everyone you want to interact with.
What open source software is a "nice thing"? We're talking about high quality user experience here. I don't think it's controversial to say that's vanishingly rare in OSS.
Actually it's proprietary software that's more likely to be full of anti-patterns and flows designed in the interest of the corporation rather than the user while advanced functionality is missing because it might confuse the lowest common denominator user. Looking flashy and retard-safe design does not make a high quality user experience.
I mean it does escape the cycle, lots of products charge money and aren't awful. The ones that are awful are mostly the ones people don't pay for, or things that use the freemium business model.
Most things that just charge a subscription are good and get better.
Most things that just charge a subscription are good and get better.
More like most things that charge a subscription will eventually add ads and other anti-features because that's the only way to satisfy demands for infinite growth once the market has been exhausted.
Sounds like Partiful's time has come before its even had a chance to try to sustain itself. It probably doesn't even have the resources to fight apple on this
Not everything is in the position or can afford to transitionally tax the whole of the internet itself like big tech.
You're paying for Apple Invites whether you realize it or not. There's immense value in making their platform more sticky.
In a few years you'll read articles about uncool Android kids not getting invited to parties. And that's your answer.
One of these behaviors is way more insidious.
You're paying for Apple Invites whether you realize it or not. There's immense value in making their platform more sticky.
In a few years you'll read articles about uncool Android kids not getting invited to parties. And that's your answer.
One of these behaviors is way more insidious.
> You're paying for Apple Invites whether you realize it or not. There's immense value in making their platform more sticky.
I'm not stuck to Apple's platform, I'm quite happy here. Apple services aren't drenched in ads end to end. Apple's services aren't constantly asking for nickels and dimes; it's one charge, every month, for a buffet of services that are regularly added to and actually improved, making them distinct from... fuck, the rest of the Internet basically, which seems to boil down to a revolving door of stupidly named services backed by VC funding that get popular, quickly, because they don't charge anything and aren't drenched in ads, and then slowly they add the ads, but there's an ad free tier for not much money, oh but now there's ads in that tier, which is also more expensive, and then the service shuts down because they didn't hit 60 billion users before their runway ran out, but there's this new service...
And while I'm certain they do some spying and whatnot to facilitate targeted ads, they at least pay lip service to my privacy, and my experiences developing stuff for their hardware tells me that at least there is a whiff of security to their hardware. There are a lot of things as a developer I'm straight up not allowed to do.
The "insidiousness" of Apple's plan so far seems to be, largely, making damn good products that people want to use, and backing them up with cloud services that work well. I wish more tech firms took that approach to be totally honest.
I'm not stuck to Apple's platform, I'm quite happy here. Apple services aren't drenched in ads end to end. Apple's services aren't constantly asking for nickels and dimes; it's one charge, every month, for a buffet of services that are regularly added to and actually improved, making them distinct from... fuck, the rest of the Internet basically, which seems to boil down to a revolving door of stupidly named services backed by VC funding that get popular, quickly, because they don't charge anything and aren't drenched in ads, and then slowly they add the ads, but there's an ad free tier for not much money, oh but now there's ads in that tier, which is also more expensive, and then the service shuts down because they didn't hit 60 billion users before their runway ran out, but there's this new service...
And while I'm certain they do some spying and whatnot to facilitate targeted ads, they at least pay lip service to my privacy, and my experiences developing stuff for their hardware tells me that at least there is a whiff of security to their hardware. There are a lot of things as a developer I'm straight up not allowed to do.
The "insidiousness" of Apple's plan so far seems to be, largely, making damn good products that people want to use, and backing them up with cloud services that work well. I wish more tech firms took that approach to be totally honest.
You're totally missing the point of parent. The cost is in how insidiously this behavior ostracizes Android owners over time, just like they've done for years with blue/green bubbles.
I'm an Apple user, and it serves me well, but it absolutely uses really sinister dark patterns to separate me from contacts in the Android world.
I'm an Apple user, and it serves me well, but it absolutely uses really sinister dark patterns to separate me from contacts in the Android world.
I have never gotten the blue green ostacization. It's a color. It denotes whether you're using iMessage or SMS (now the new standard, RCS I think).
Like I've heard of teenagers giving each other shit for it, I have never ever once in my life, myself or any person I've worked or been friends with, gives it a second thought. And if I actually heard someone attempting to make this into a thing I would judge them incredibly harshly.
Like I've heard of teenagers giving each other shit for it, I have never ever once in my life, myself or any person I've worked or been friends with, gives it a second thought. And if I actually heard someone attempting to make this into a thing I would judge them incredibly harshly.
That’s entirely the point though.
I don’t mind it at all, nor would I care, but it others people that don’t have an iPhone (especially teenagers), and they also suggest this in their explanation (that a green bubble means the chat is no longer encrypted, even though WhatsApp and RCS exist).
It’s a dark pattern that they’ve rightly been criticized for, but no-one has thus far cared enough to do something about it.
I don’t mind it at all, nor would I care, but it others people that don’t have an iPhone (especially teenagers), and they also suggest this in their explanation (that a green bubble means the chat is no longer encrypted, even though WhatsApp and RCS exist).
It’s a dark pattern that they’ve rightly been criticized for, but no-one has thus far cared enough to do something about it.
This already happens. My adult friend group has to create a separate group chat for me and another friends and we get the invite after the main group.
partiful was actually a decent solution but they just got sherlocked
partiful was actually a decent solution but they just got sherlocked
> You're paying for Apple Invites whether you realize it or not
I mean, it requires a paid iCloud account, so... yeah.
I mean, it requires a paid iCloud account, so... yeah.
This already happens with green bubbles, it's not new.
I mean, you can invite anyone. it’s not limited to apple device invitees.
Yeah, but like, with the crappiest possible version of this service that is a massive downgrade for them from something like partiful.
Our club uses Spond for invites. I'm not sure what the financial side of it looks like, but it's been great for coordinating training/games/socials.
Evite was hot for awhile - totally gone downhill. Same as meetups. Tough to make those things as paid businesses which is probably necessary to keep them operating well (or at least take VC money and try and make a return).
Meetup has become the worst service I use, bar none. They pretty much doubled our group fees from $200 a year to $400 a year, then started putting giant banner ads at the top of all of our member emails, then started locking essential features (like seeing RSVP lists) behind a member-level membership and started begging our members to give them money directly.
I think Apple's right about at least part of this - something like Evite isn't an app (or worth paying for), it's a feature that needs to be stuck onside another app that gets paid for.
I see people using Luma everywhere these days
I see very little use of either Evite or Meetup at this point though I imagine if I sought them out I'd see some continued use. (I do run into an Evite signup from time to time for a paid event.)
For a short period of time back in 2013 or so, we had AnyVite, which was so much better than Evite in all ways. I wonder what happened to them. I think they basically disappeared.
I can highly recommend https://confetti.events/ for this.
Profitable small company (not affiliated but know the founders), won’t go downhill like evite.
Profitable small company (not affiliated but know the founders), won’t go downhill like evite.
partiful i guess is the hot one in SF/NYC
Nothing beats https://www.when2meet.com/
I've used it for so much community organizing. It's such a simple tool and nobody has to make an account. You put in your name and an (optional) password. The optional password feature has served as a source of inspiration in my own projects. It pushed me to consider "does this really need an account? Can it be done without one?"
I've used it for so much community organizing. It's such a simple tool and nobody has to make an account. You put in your name and an (optional) password. The optional password feature has served as a source of inspiration in my own projects. It pushed me to consider "does this really need an account? Can it be done without one?"
Seems similar to when is good, which also has allows passwordless usage.
https://whenisgood.net/
I paid to go ad free. We like it though it’s been down a couple times last year..
https://whenisgood.net/
I paid to go ad free. We like it though it’s been down a couple times last year..
looks awful on mobile. i do appreciate that it’s very accessible though.
Luma and Partiful are really good.
This Apple thing is going to turn into a "green text" social signalling thing all over again. If you have an Android, you won't be invited.
More scummy Apple social engineering bullshit. Kids that already hate on those having Android colored text bubbles are going to bully each other even more. And of course kids need the latest iPhone, too.
Apple is playing into this brilliantly and it's disgusting.
This Apple thing is going to turn into a "green text" social signalling thing all over again. If you have an Android, you won't be invited.
More scummy Apple social engineering bullshit. Kids that already hate on those having Android colored text bubbles are going to bully each other even more. And of course kids need the latest iPhone, too.
Apple is playing into this brilliantly and it's disgusting.
This green text thing only happens in the US. Nobody really uses iMessage elsewhere.
Apple/iOS has market dominance in several places outside the US, including Japan, Canada, Scandinavia, and several other European nations. It has a slight majority in the UK.
Android has worldwide dominance overall, but people tend to communicate locally.
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/iphone-ma...
Android has worldwide dominance overall, but people tend to communicate locally.
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/iphone-ma...
Nobody uses iMessage in Europe. It's an american phenomenon like beepers, caused by different market conditions.
In Europe the kids use Snapchat. Adults use WhatsApp for most calls, messages and rich media, and maybe Signal/Telegram for select groups or grey activities. The elderly use Facebook messenger and WhatsApp.
In Europe the kids use Snapchat. Adults use WhatsApp for most calls, messages and rich media, and maybe Signal/Telegram for select groups or grey activities. The elderly use Facebook messenger and WhatsApp.
Japan and most of Europe do not really use iMessage (Japan uses LINE, Europe generally uses WhatsApp), so I'm not sure exactly how iPhone market dominance is relevant to the previous commenter's point.
iMessage is nowhere near as popular outside the US, mostly because consumers do not expect to default themselves into some kind of single-manufacturer proprietary "ecosystem" that rivals Sony in how anti-consumer it is.
Thanks to the EU, you can just charge newer model iPhones with any USB-C cable now instead of having to pad Apple's profits further with proprietary dongles and cables that offer no additional value.
Thanks to the EU, you can just charge newer model iPhones with any USB-C cable now instead of having to pad Apple's profits further with proprietary dongles and cables that offer no additional value.
Your depiction of iMessage (which is essentially SMS+encrypted communication with enhancements to people who also have Apple devices) seems disingenuous, as does your explanation of why people use alternatives outside the US. Outside the HN bubble, most people don‘t care about things like proprietary vs open (and if they did, why the heck would they opt for propietary alternatives).
It shouldn't be allowed in the US. Lina Khan was going to put a stop to it, but tragically that didn't reach its culmination.
> Lina Khan was going to put a stop to it, but tragically that didn't reach its culmination.
Lets not kid ourselves she was going to keep focusing on minimum impact, likely to fail cases with good optics, and inventing more obtuse interpretations of anti-trust law while continuing to ignore any real monopolies she could.
Lets not kid ourselves she was going to keep focusing on minimum impact, likely to fail cases with good optics, and inventing more obtuse interpretations of anti-trust law while continuing to ignore any real monopolies she could.
Why? Does the color affect functionality or are we going to pass laws based on feelings?
It does. If you try to send a photo in an inferior green bubble chat, you get an error. Face time calls don’t work.
The text is harder to read for me because it’s low contrast and can’t be configured.
It’s significantly less secure, and a government agent required I use blue bubble imessage to submit an important document for security, and wouldn’t accept it by sms or email since both were not secure enough
The text is harder to read for me because it’s low contrast and can’t be configured.
It’s significantly less secure, and a government agent required I use blue bubble imessage to submit an important document for security, and wouldn’t accept it by sms or email since both were not secure enough
That should work now because of RCS.
Email is secure enough though. People make up security rules in their heads all the time, doesn't mean it's true.
Email is secure enough though. People make up security rules in their heads all the time, doesn't mean it's true.
Tbh Apple's RCS implementation is so buggy it almost has me on the "they added bugs to keep people off of it" conspiracy train.
As in, during a conversation my phone would send RCS and the iPhone would reply with SMS only. This has happened multiple times with multiple people, and some where RCS won't let us communicate - the messages just disappear into the void, but only when sent from the iPhone.
https://i.imgur.com/FrMfECA.png
As in, during a conversation my phone would send RCS and the iPhone would reply with SMS only. This has happened multiple times with multiple people, and some where RCS won't let us communicate - the messages just disappear into the void, but only when sent from the iPhone.
https://i.imgur.com/FrMfECA.png
This happens in Android to Android too, especially with Samsung Messages.
A lot of carrier's RCS implementations are buggy.
A lot of carrier's RCS implementations are buggy.
apple has intentionally handicapped rcs and it is still ongoing
If you're in the U.S. and a "government agent" told you to use iMessage, you are 100% being scammed. No way they would accept anything less secure than a fax message or a document portal that looks like it was set up in the 90's.
It was certainly not a scam as the process completed successfully after iMessage-ing the required documents.
It wasn't the US though, yeah, but rather some american working for a foreign country's government.
It wasn't the US though, yeah, but rather some american working for a foreign country's government.
Sending a message should just default to MMS, which I agree is lower quality especially for videos, but shouldn't get an error. I'm in multiple group chats with Android users and it's fine other than videos, which are from 2005.
I think SMS/MMS should just go away entirely though.
I think SMS/MMS should just go away entirely though.
On my device it always gives me an error telling me to turn on MMS, which is turned on of course.
No, rebooting the phone doesn’t change anything, thanks for suggesting it
No, rebooting the phone doesn’t change anything, thanks for suggesting it
What are you talking about? Photos have worked in MSS group chats for 10+ years now. They send as shit quality but they work. And now mixed group chats are RCS which has all the important features of iMessage.
The error tells me to turn on MMS, which is already on.
RCS isn’t an obvious option anywhere
RCS isn’t an obvious option anywhere
Settings > Apps > Messages > RCS Messaging
If it isn't there, About > Settings > General > About and tap the Carrier row. If it doesn't say RCS, the carrier doesn't support it.
Also one should note, MMS also requires carrier support and a few carriers don't support it in some countries.
There's a list of supported features for carriers worldwide at https://support.apple.com/en-gb/108048
If it isn't there, About > Settings > General > About and tap the Carrier row. If it doesn't say RCS, the carrier doesn't support it.
Also one should note, MMS also requires carrier support and a few carriers don't support it in some countries.
There's a list of supported features for carriers worldwide at https://support.apple.com/en-gb/108048
Got it, I'll move to a country that supports RCS at my earliest convenience, and also not message anyone while I'm roaming to another carrier on vacation.
My carrier should support MMS, but I haven't yet had it work (and inbound messages to my number, like the picture of a family-member's wedding invite sent to my phone number, just silently vanish into the void)... I just kinda assumed it was working as expected since I'd heard so much about the green bubble issues.
My carrier should support MMS, but I haven't yet had it work (and inbound messages to my number, like the picture of a family-member's wedding invite sent to my phone number, just silently vanish into the void)... I just kinda assumed it was working as expected since I'd heard so much about the green bubble issues.
> are we going to pass laws based on feelings?
This is very concrete fuckery.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/21/apple-doj-antitrust...
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/28/1241473453/why-green-text-bub...
https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/21/doj-claims-green-bubbles-a...
This is very concrete fuckery.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/21/apple-doj-antitrust...
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/28/1241473453/why-green-text-bub...
https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/21/doj-claims-green-bubbles-a...
The concrete fuckery:
(Politico) Lower video quality
(NPR) Feeling unwelcome
(TechCrunch) Peer pressure
(Politico) Lower video quality
(NPR) Feeling unwelcome
(TechCrunch) Peer pressure
Hate to break it to ya, everything humans do is fundamentally affected by feelings.
i read this take a lot but have never heard of it in practice (from my high school nieces)
what is overwhelmingly prevalent is political bullying; eg "make the dems cry again" was all over the school in various forms (t shirts, device backgrounds, etc)
green bubble hysteria really isn't a thing beyond nerds.
what is overwhelmingly prevalent is political bullying; eg "make the dems cry again" was all over the school in various forms (t shirts, device backgrounds, etc)
green bubble hysteria really isn't a thing beyond nerds.
I could see it being really useful for that, my only hesitation would be that here in Europe it would need to support Android due to how ubiquitous that is here.
yeah, Evite used to really shine but now I feel like it's just an invitation to see ads
I think some demographic info can be useful in judging the potential uptake.
Apple iPhone ownership amongst USA teens:
2024: 87%
2019: 83%
2014: 67%
https://www.iclarified.com/95177/87-of-us-teens-own-iphones-...
https://www.pipersandler.com/news/piper-jaffray-completes-se...
https://www.pipersandler.com/news/different-new-cool-accordi...
Smartphone marketshare for iPhone in various countries:
65%: Norway
59%: Sweden/Japan/Canada/USA
49%: UK
30-39%: Germany/Portugal/Italy
other countries are lower from my random sampling of developed countries (South Korea is dominated by Samsung).
Source: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/norway
Change last part of url to get info for another country
Apple iPhone ownership amongst USA teens:
2024: 87%
2019: 83%
2014: 67%
https://www.iclarified.com/95177/87-of-us-teens-own-iphones-...
https://www.pipersandler.com/news/piper-jaffray-completes-se...
https://www.pipersandler.com/news/different-new-cool-accordi...
Smartphone marketshare for iPhone in various countries:
65%: Norway
59%: Sweden/Japan/Canada/USA
49%: UK
30-39%: Germany/Portugal/Italy
other countries are lower from my random sampling of developed countries (South Korea is dominated by Samsung).
Source: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/norway
Change last part of url to get info for another country
Norway data from statcounter doesn't seem reliable. In just 4 months, July->October 2024, there's a 14% upswing in iphone total marketshare. Which implies that at least 14% of users bought a new phone, assuming (wrongly) that everybody would have changed from Android to iPhone (ignoring also deceases and teenagers getting their first phone).
And the period doesn't even include Black Friday or Christmas. And barely the iPhone 16 launch that happened in September 20, 2024.
Samsung shoot itself in the foot as a phone manufacturer in the last 2 years. Battery life, forced apps, ads, and a pretty bad implementation of the Android OS while trying to sell the phone at the same price as the iPhone.
The S24 ultra still has an ancient 3x cam that has been left unchanged since the S21 ultra.
It's hard to compete when Apple has the Macbook + iPhone synergy/ecosystem advantage.
The S24 ultra still has an ancient 3x cam that has been left unchanged since the S21 ultra.
It's hard to compete when Apple has the Macbook + iPhone synergy/ecosystem advantage.
I dunno most people I know here do appear to have iphones. And many of those who have an Android seemingly have an iPhone as work or personal device in addition. So 60+ percent doesn't sound unlikely.
statcounter just uses data from website traffic, it's nothing more then Google Analytics
So the 14% increase is probably a single or few site(s) getting a insane amount of traffic.
So the 14% increase is probably a single or few site(s) getting a insane amount of traffic.
> Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription.
I really wonder what the uptake is on iCloud+ subscriptions.
I really wonder what the uptake is on iCloud+ subscriptions.
Pretty high I suspect, since you need it if you want to back up more that 5 GB.
If you keep photos and videos without dealing with a separate service, it's pretty much a no-brainer. And the cheapest tier is $0.99/mo. for 50 GB so it's not exactly breaking the bank.
If you keep photos and videos without dealing with a separate service, it's pretty much a no-brainer. And the cheapest tier is $0.99/mo. for 50 GB so it's not exactly breaking the bank.
> And the cheapest tier is $0.99/mo. for 50 GB so it's not exactly breaking the bank.
This is a huge trick. Like any other service where the most friction is setting up billing... then they can increase the price easily. Do upgrades to other tiers require confirmation?
This is a huge trick. Like any other service where the most friction is setting up billing... then they can increase the price easily. Do upgrades to other tiers require confirmation?
You have to explicitly upgrade.
There's no trick as far as I can tell.
And they haven't increased the price of the $0.99 tier ever, and it's been around for 8 years I think. I don't think they've ever increased the price of any storage plan in the US ever -- prices in other countries have changed but that seems to do more with currency fluctuations.
Apple is known for their transparent pricing and easy cancellation. I don't think there are any tricks here.
There's no trick as far as I can tell.
And they haven't increased the price of the $0.99 tier ever, and it's been around for 8 years I think. I don't think they've ever increased the price of any storage plan in the US ever -- prices in other countries have changed but that seems to do more with currency fluctuations.
Apple is known for their transparent pricing and easy cancellation. I don't think there are any tricks here.
If anything their trick is in how they describe the storage tiers on their website[1]:
> $0.99/mo for 50GB: Storage for thousands of photos, videos, and files.
> $2.99/mo for 200GB: Great for family sharing or larger media libraries.
> $9.99/mo for 2TB: Plenty of space for all the family’s photos, videos, and files.
Other than the $0.99 tier, these storage numbers are comically low for the uses cases Apple describes in plain English. But that's par for the course with Apple... An arm, a leg, and your firstborn for storage and RAM upgrades. As in hardware, so in SaaS cloud storage, I guess.
[1]: https://www.apple.com/icloud/
> $0.99/mo for 50GB: Storage for thousands of photos, videos, and files.
> $2.99/mo for 200GB: Great for family sharing or larger media libraries.
> $9.99/mo for 2TB: Plenty of space for all the family’s photos, videos, and files.
Other than the $0.99 tier, these storage numbers are comically low for the uses cases Apple describes in plain English. But that's par for the course with Apple... An arm, a leg, and your firstborn for storage and RAM upgrades. As in hardware, so in SaaS cloud storage, I guess.
[1]: https://www.apple.com/icloud/
I did professional photography on the side for the better part of a decade before needing to go above 2TB. You don't have to hoard.
I agree on photos, but when I hear "larger media library" I assume we're talking video content, both family videos taken on phones and commercial media (TV and Movies). Maybe I'm misreading but either 200GB or 2TB are both very small for a whole family's collection of video media.
Are you thinking of their television shows or movies or something? That's not really a use case here.
Does any significant slice of the population store TV shows and movies on their phones or laptops?
Honestly, most families do not maintain a digital collection of media. And I say that as someone who does. Most families just have a netflix or prime or apple tv subscription, maybe cable. If there's a collection, it's probably DVD or Blu-Ray still.
> There's no trick as far as I can tell.
I think that is the trick.
99 cents is so innocuous, that people set up billing to allow it. People who set up their apple id without a credit card will probably attach a card to their account to get the 99 cent storage "deal".
At that point, upgrading to the next tier is inevitable as phones have been steadily increasing in storage capacity.
I think it would be nicer if your icloud storage capacity matched your primary device.
I think that is the trick.
99 cents is so innocuous, that people set up billing to allow it. People who set up their apple id without a credit card will probably attach a card to their account to get the 99 cent storage "deal".
At that point, upgrading to the next tier is inevitable as phones have been steadily increasing in storage capacity.
I think it would be nicer if your icloud storage capacity matched your primary device.
There's no winning then, is there?
If a company doesn't offer a super cheap tier, then people complain it's too expensive and they're paying for space they don't need.
If Apple does offer a super cheap tier, there are complaints it's some kind of trick.
The $0.99 tier has been great for my needs. If you have a 64 GB phone you never need more. If you have a larger phone you quite frequently don't need more -- a lot of my phone storage goes to song, podcast, and video downloads. That stuff doesn't need to be backed up, and isn't by default.
If a company doesn't offer a super cheap tier, then people complain it's too expensive and they're paying for space they don't need.
If Apple does offer a super cheap tier, there are complaints it's some kind of trick.
The $0.99 tier has been great for my needs. If you have a 64 GB phone you never need more. If you have a larger phone you quite frequently don't need more -- a lot of my phone storage goes to song, podcast, and video downloads. That stuff doesn't need to be backed up, and isn't by default.
I think that nearly everyone who has an iPhone (at least who didn't get their phone deeply discounted second-hand) has a payment method set up with Apple. I don't remember the numbers from when I had to know ~5 years ago, but it was in excess of 95% in the US.
"with this one trick, you can get everyone to register a credit card!"
:)
:)
I avoided subscribing for years out of principle, just backed up my photos locally (which they make as painful as possible — afaik it’s not possible to just plug your phone into a Linux machine and grab all the new photos).
I finally caved a few months ago when I got tired of fighting with the awful backup storage UI that makes it difficult to determine why the backup is failing even though it’s smaller than 5GB.
Apple has every incentive to make that UI as bad as possible while still being functional.
I finally caved a few months ago when I got tired of fighting with the awful backup storage UI that makes it difficult to determine why the backup is failing even though it’s smaller than 5GB.
Apple has every incentive to make that UI as bad as possible while still being functional.
But, in my experience, it's extremely fast. Noticeably faster syncing than Dropbox. And even the Windows client is being constantly updated.
Don’t you need to get iCloud+ if you want to have more than 5GB iCloud storage? I would guess it’s probably
more than 80% of users.
That's where most of it comes from - iCloud+ is different than Apple One.
iCloud+ for 2TB is priced just where if you have ONE other Apple service, you're probably better off with Apple One.
(I admit I misread this whole thing as being a feature of Apple One.)
iCloud+ for 2TB is priced just where if you have ONE other Apple service, you're probably better off with Apple One.
(I admit I misread this whole thing as being a feature of Apple One.)
I switched to iCloud for my personal email once it supported personal domains (switched from Fastmail). It’s all I need really. Work is Gmail of course, with its annoying-in-retrospect tagging system instead of folders, which causes havoc with traditional mail apps.
Not sure but services overall is one of Apples fastest growing business segments.
I remember seeing everyone with iPhone >10 years ago in Norway. Then it dropped - it was pretty visible that is why I remember. Haven't been paying attention about last ~4 years.
I'm in my mid-thirties and most of my friends have ditched Facebook. I didn't really realize this until when I used it to create an event for a house party... I was somewhat surprised that only 2 people out of 15 even saw it. I ended up resorting to good old text message and that worked, but it was tedious. Not sure how popular this will become, but having a social-media-less event invite/broadcasting system would be nice, and having one that most people with an iPhone have access to covers much of my friend base
Platform fragmentation is a generational thing.
I thought email was a common denominator but I learned most people don’t check email or check it rarely. So different from the days when everyone had email.
I still use FB and so do many of my friends my age (mid to late 40s). But a bunch have also migrated to Instagram.
Among the younger generation, you’re a millennial if you’re on instagram because they’ve moved to TikTok. FB folks are over the hill. There’s a generational divide and pride in being trendy.
WhatsApp is only a thing among my international friends — many Americans don’t have it.
The only universal now is text messages but it feels so clunky (even with iMessage).
I thought email was a common denominator but I learned most people don’t check email or check it rarely. So different from the days when everyone had email.
I still use FB and so do many of my friends my age (mid to late 40s). But a bunch have also migrated to Instagram.
Among the younger generation, you’re a millennial if you’re on instagram because they’ve moved to TikTok. FB folks are over the hill. There’s a generational divide and pride in being trendy.
WhatsApp is only a thing among my international friends — many Americans don’t have it.
The only universal now is text messages but it feels so clunky (even with iMessage).
I wonder if it is rooted in similar things though. Right, like with email. People don't really read or check emails because spam became a serious problem. Then with social media, looking at facebook, there is definitely a big different in ad space in facebook between the time I used to use it to now. Where ads have effectively become the "spam" equivalent for social media. Ultimately, did success of these technologies also lead to its demise. Email was so good, so it made sense for a market of spammers. Facebook became a prime place for ads, and as ads become more and more of the platform, people started to consciously or subconsciously step away to other platforms.
>People don't really read or check emails because spam became a serious problem.
With the tabs in Gmail, very little leaks through to my primary inbox that isn't relatively immediately relevant (and not a lot of mail total). Often don't look at Promotions at all and maybe glance at Updates once a day or so.
Email is useful for me though, yes, a lot of my interaction with my circle of friends is over texts.
With the tabs in Gmail, very little leaks through to my primary inbox that isn't relatively immediately relevant (and not a lot of mail total). Often don't look at Promotions at all and maybe glance at Updates once a day or so.
Email is useful for me though, yes, a lot of my interaction with my circle of friends is over texts.
The problem for me is not so much real spam, this gets filtered. The problem is the massive amount of work required to unsubscribe or clean up automated emails from apps and websites, both transactional and non-transactional.
I know way too many techy and non-techy people who have thousands of unread email messages from those apps.
A lot of people I know don't really answer to real email anymore, unless they know something is coming. It became just something you use to make accounts with.
Even corporate email is dying. 99% of my inbox is transactional emails from SaaS apps and spam from apps I forgot to delete. And 90% of the rest is spam from recruiters or people trying to sell me some product. Only 0.1% is legitimate.
Statistically, email is not for people anymore, period.
I know way too many techy and non-techy people who have thousands of unread email messages from those apps.
A lot of people I know don't really answer to real email anymore, unless they know something is coming. It became just something you use to make accounts with.
Even corporate email is dying. 99% of my inbox is transactional emails from SaaS apps and spam from apps I forgot to delete. And 90% of the rest is spam from recruiters or people trying to sell me some product. Only 0.1% is legitimate.
Statistically, email is not for people anymore, period.
Experiences differ. I did go on unsubscribe jags from time to time at my last employer because I ended up on email lists from a lot of events.
But really, I get 5-10 emails a day now in my primary inbox and I don't really have many filters. I DO get a lot in Promotions and Updates, but most of the stuff in Promos I can safely ignore and I mostly keep my eye on Updates if I'm expecting something I might want to deal with there.
Email is still my primary channel for the most part.
But really, I get 5-10 emails a day now in my primary inbox and I don't really have many filters. I DO get a lot in Promotions and Updates, but most of the stuff in Promos I can safely ignore and I mostly keep my eye on Updates if I'm expecting something I might want to deal with there.
Email is still my primary channel for the most part.
Spam filters can be trained. Just mark anything you don't want and didn't explicitly sign up to as spam, "legitimate" sender or not. Problem solved.
If everyone in a city wants to go crap in some place, I'm not gonna be the one cleaning their shit. I'm just gonna stop coming there.
Email is just a public toilet. I'm not gonna work hard so I can pretend it's a five star restaurant.
I'm already doing my part by not making it worse.
Email is just a public toilet. I'm not gonna work hard so I can pretend it's a five star restaurant.
I'm already doing my part by not making it worse.
There is still a lot of "spam" if you don't spend the effort creating filters or unsubscribing to the new notification list that companies like to make every few months. Hell, my inbox is covered in invoices, receipts, disclosures, required actions, ToS changes, etc., even though I've spent some time setting up filters for some of the common receipts.
Sounds like lots of transactional mail for services you signed up to with that mail. Sign up to less crap or use a different mail from the one you use to communicate with real people.
I used to use a separate email when I ordered things etc. Once Gmail tabs came in, I pretty much stopped doing so because it was too much trouble to monitor a second email address because I actually care about receipts, order tracking, etc. a lot of the time.
I think you've hit the nail on the head of the problem.
A lot of comments online claim that people don't care about spam, or think that advertisements are a good thing for a free service, or at the very least won't change their habits if given an alternative. If that's the case then what's a better explanation for your observations?
I argue that people do care, even if it's perhaps not expressed in words.
A lot of comments online claim that people don't care about spam, or think that advertisements are a good thing for a free service, or at the very least won't change their habits if given an alternative. If that's the case then what's a better explanation for your observations?
I argue that people do care, even if it's perhaps not expressed in words.
A lot of legitimate email (password resets and stuff) gets eaten up by spam filters
We have a family email domain for my extended family, administered by a few retired but very tech-savvy relatives (both had long IT careers) and it’s roughly 50:50 whether a message sent to everyone@ lastname.com will actually show up in people’s inboxes or not. It’s probably 75:25 that a reply all to that list will show up, but modern email is a dumpster fire.
Is this using some cloud-based email host where you don't have any control over the spam filter? Otherwise, whitelisting (verified) senders from your own dowmain should be very much possible.
E-Mail isn't some magic that randomly drops mails. Mail servers are even resilient against network problems and will retry dilevery MANY times. What you are describing is NOT normal and would make using it for business basically impossible, which is not the case since email is still the primary b2b communication method for many companies.
E-Mail isn't some magic that randomly drops mails. Mail servers are even resilient against network problems and will retry dilevery MANY times. What you are describing is NOT normal and would make using it for business basically impossible, which is not the case since email is still the primary b2b communication method for many companies.
I uses the business version of Office 365 for e-mail. It works well. I never have a problem with e-mails not being delivered or going into a SPAM folder. I am not saying your family did anything wrong. What I am saying is e-mail works well for some people.
Yeah, unfortunately that seems to be the best way to handle this kind of thing but unfortunately that costs $6/person/month so our ~50 person casual email list for organizing fantasy football and family reunions would cost almost $4k/year.
It’s interesting that WhatsApp never caught on in the US. It’s ubiquitous amongst everyone I know. Android use also seems to be much larger in Europe
I don't remember the exact timeline but I think SMS became free (bundled with mobile phone plan) in the US before WhatsApp became popular. And most of us don't interact via chat very much internationally. So (probably) most people just default to SMS/iMessage unless there's a reason to do something differently. And even the one person I regularly communicate with chat in Europe, we default to Facebook Messenger.
People in Europe are poorer. Android is cheaper.
I'm in my mid 40s, my friends mostly use email for organising events more than a week or two in the future, google chat or WhatsApp for more spontaneous things.
Very occasional FB invites for things when casting the net wide, like, I'm back in town and having a picnic, everyone come.
Very occasional FB invites for things when casting the net wide, like, I'm back in town and having a picnic, everyone come.
My wife is late 40s and just deleted her facebook account, and she's the most FOMO person I know - and she did this because of zuck capitulating to trump. A lot of people have had it with companies supporting fascists.
Lol so you/your wife were OK with all the spying and manipulation via ads but not being negative enough towards the democratically elected president is where you draw the line? Hysterical.
[deleted]
> I'm in my mid-thirties and most of my friends have ditched Facebook.
Marketplace seems to be one of the main use cases that's still relatively popular.
Marketplace seems to be one of the main use cases that's still relatively popular.
Marketplace and groups. Most of my friends are on WhatsApp so we ditched FB.
Apple would be smart to build those things and make it available on Android too. Then we could ditch FB altogether.
Apple would be smart to build those things and make it available on Android too. Then we could ditch FB altogether.
Yep, groups was essentially all I used FB for until we moved to Discord (which much better for us), I was so glad when I could stop checking FB completely.
Problem with Discord is you have to enforce real names otherwise you have to limit it to people you know.
Young people I know (except for gamers) find Discord a bit sus because you don’t have any baseline with regard to name or profile pic. Also who already knows who. Discord doesn’t expose any social network outside of the specific server.
You would think Discord would be the community of choice for Gen Z but in reality it’s limited to gamer and gamer adjacent folks.
Turns out identity and known social network are still things people look for to achieve a base level of trust for real time chat.
Reddit and HN are more topic driven, but chat somehow feels more personal.
Young people I know (except for gamers) find Discord a bit sus because you don’t have any baseline with regard to name or profile pic. Also who already knows who. Discord doesn’t expose any social network outside of the specific server.
You would think Discord would be the community of choice for Gen Z but in reality it’s limited to gamer and gamer adjacent folks.
Turns out identity and known social network are still things people look for to achieve a base level of trust for real time chat.
Reddit and HN are more topic driven, but chat somehow feels more personal.
It’s the community and interest groups that are really hard to migrate. There needs to be an easy migration route or something.
Other wise FB is really garbage. Just irrelevant suggestions and no amount of blocking trains the algorithm since they are just trying to make money.
Other wise FB is really garbage. Just irrelevant suggestions and no amount of blocking trains the algorithm since they are just trying to make money.
It's also the only bit of Facebook that hasn't turned into an endless stream of trash. I expect that not to last either, if you're looking for an idea then a localised marketplace alternative with social proof should be on your radar.
For a long time they were heavily promoting "Ships to You" non-local goods. Annoying. Lots of dropshipper type stuff rather than a local unique items. Marketplace seems to have backed off that in the last year(s) though, my feed seems very local, one-off, and "real.
It still has a lot of trash, but 90% of it is trash you experience as a seller. Scammers are still really common, and I doubt the moderation has gotten much better since I failed to sell an empty aquarium because they couldn't be convinced it didn't have fish in it (although based on everything else on Facebook, there probably is just no moderation now).
For people in their early 20s to mid 30s in the NYC area, I'm starting to see mass adoption of an app called Partiful for managing social invites and events, it has a lot of nice features for sending invites, RSVP management, sending text blasts out to attendees (you can schedule reminders the day before or whatever).
In fact, Apple Invites appears to be a direct response to the popularity of Partiful.
My first thought. I’m surprised it’s not everyone’s first thought. Everyone in the bay that I know uses that for parties. Clearly every tech company is aware off the ubiquity of that app at least
And in the Northeast, this is the first time I've even heard of it. (Though I doubt I'm the target market.)
Yeah, this is straight up f.lux 2.0 where Apple saw an idea take off, and unlike 'Nightshift' where they connected it to their new 'Health' product to stimulate Apple Watch purchases, they connected Apple Invites to social behaviors to stimulate iMessage and iCloud adoption and revenues.
My social group also uses Partiful. It works great, but it's a little worrying that it's so useful while being free: I can't see how this possibly could make money, so I assume the enshittification is coming any second now.
Literally they just need to add ticketing with a small fee. They are sitting on a huge revenue stream they just haven't need to roll out yet.
I can't imagine something like this is expensive to host, minus perhaps the text messages. But presumably they could charge for those (and make a little off the top).
My guess: certain features will just become pro-only
Partiful works but to me it lacks polish. It feels like MySpace when FB first came out.
I'm curious in what way you think so? It's both attractive and easy to use for me.
There’s no right or wrong answer but as someone who used to work in publishing, the typeface seems contrived to be amateurish. I wonder if it’s supposed to evoke a more “authentic” unpolished feel? (YouTubers actually find too much polish reduces engagement among younger people)
The pictures are also a bit amateurish but this is more a function of the inviter. On other platforms much of the design choices are made for you so there’s a lower bar but for me, partiful seems to want to hit the kind of “having street cred” aesthetic.
This is a typical partiful aesthetic.
https://images.app.goo.gl/ufJafvhXoBtaF6QE8
The pictures are also a bit amateurish but this is more a function of the inviter. On other platforms much of the design choices are made for you so there’s a lower bar but for me, partiful seems to want to hit the kind of “having street cred” aesthetic.
This is a typical partiful aesthetic.
https://images.app.goo.gl/ufJafvhXoBtaF6QE8
It’s remarkable how this has changed. Back in what I call the “Facebook golden age” (2012-2016), before it turned to complete crap, it was unthinkable to host an event that was NOT organized by Facebook. I recall throwing birthday and holiday parties and all I had to do was scroll through my friends list and invite everyone and that was that. Everyone would see it and everyone would RSVP.
Oh well - it was nice while it lasted.
Oh well - it was nice while it lasted.
Here friends just send a message on WhatsApp. I do not know anyone who has hosted a house party of 79800 people so that they are struggling with this. But then again I guess some geographies have it more complicated, isn't it?
A (for most of the world, in any case) possibly surprising fact about the US is that WhatsApp is not very popular there.
This indeed causes problems when wanting to create a quick ad-hoc group for a party invitation etc., if at least one of the invitees is not an iPhone user.
This indeed causes problems when wanting to create a quick ad-hoc group for a party invitation etc., if at least one of the invitees is not an iPhone user.
The only reason I have WhatsApp is that a couple non-US friends use it from time to time. No one I know in the US does anything other than standard text messaging whether or not it ends up being iMessage.
The parent's chat group for my toddler's school is WhatsApp. There was nobody who didn't have it installed (and it's about 50/50 android/iPhone).
It causes problems if one of the iPhone owners isn't an active iCloud+ subscriber:
> Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription.
This isn't about making life easier on people, this is about getting you to subscribe to Apple's services for access to a REST API. Apple gets some benefit of the doubt, but this is literally Slop-as-a-Service.
> Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription.
This isn't about making life easier on people, this is about getting you to subscribe to Apple's services for access to a REST API. Apple gets some benefit of the doubt, but this is literally Slop-as-a-Service.
I can't tell what you're arguing here – are you misunderstanding what you quoted from the FAQ? Only the person who creates the event needs to have an iCloud+ subscription. Everyone else can RSVP to it regardless of whether they have an iCloud+ subscription or even an Apple device at all.
> Do invitees need to have an Apple device with the app to attend an event?
> Apple Invites is for everyone. Guests don’t need the app, an Apple device, or an account to RSVP to an event.
Source: www.icloud.com/invites
> Do invitees need to have an Apple device with the app to attend an event?
> Apple Invites is for everyone. Guests don’t need the app, an Apple device, or an account to RSVP to an event.
Source: www.icloud.com/invites
> Apple Invites is for everyone. Guests don’t need the app, an Apple device, or an account to RSVP to an event.
Right, so how do they get and respond to the invite? I'm guessing SMS or email, making the whole thing pointless.
Right, so how do they get and respond to the invite? I'm guessing SMS or email, making the whole thing pointless.
[deleted]
Why is that pointless?
> having one that most people with an iPhone have access to covers much of my friend base
Luckily - you don’t need an iPhone or iCloud account to receive an invite and RSVP to it. Might be harder (or impossible?) to add to photos and music, but you can still get an invite and RSVP to it.
Luckily - you don’t need an iPhone or iCloud account to receive an invite and RSVP to it. Might be harder (or impossible?) to add to photos and music, but you can still get an invite and RSVP to it.
I'm still on facebook and a lot of my friends still are, the main problem we have with facebook events it that almost no one sees them.
This section has been over loaded with suggestions to event you might have no links with of things your remote friends are going to take part of.
Yes, I was also a big Facebook user in my twenties and now I'm in my mid-thirties and it seems Facebook became a lot less useful for this decade of my life.
For the birthdays of children in my social surroundings it seems the best practice has become to create an image with the details of the birthday party. Usually a photo of the birthday child with written Alice is turning 3. Join us for an afternoon of fun at Address on Saturday 16:00.
Usually shared on Whatsapp either in direct messages or in an existing school group if you are inviting the whole class or in ad-hoc group created for the event literally called Alice Birthday Party
I don't think it's that they've entirely ditched FB, but FB is genuinely terrible at surfacing event invites. It would prefer you to have to scroll through a bunch of irrelevant garbage in your feed that it had "recommended" instead so the product team can high five themselves over badly designed engagement metrics rather than worry if the users don't actively despise their product.
Yep I second this, I usually find out that I've been invited to an event when someone makes a post in the event, and often not from the event invite itself.
People currently use Instagram stories for this a lot and it's absolutely wild how Meta hasn't caught on and built in any sort of infrastructure for you to save and keep track of events.
[deleted]
> Not sure how popular this will become
Since Apple was too lazy to make it into a standard, it will probably go the way of App Clips. Niche idea, too few users to adopt it and no stakeholders with enough control to make it popular on other platforms.
Since Apple was too lazy to make it into a standard, it will probably go the way of App Clips. Niche idea, too few users to adopt it and no stakeholders with enough control to make it popular on other platforms.
What would a standard for party invites be?
ics files and CalDAV are sort of an Apple standard.
ics files and CalDAV are sort of an Apple standard.
iCalendar is RFC 2245[0], written by Microsoft and Lotus. CalDAV is RFC 4791[1] written by Apple, Oracle, and CommerceNet. Those are examples of open standards that Apple happens to use, but aren't Apple standards in the sense that they're something they cooked up internally by themselves.
[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2445
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4791
[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2445
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4791
jillyboel(1)
Even though "... anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device" I think this being an Apple branded service is going to make this appear exclusionary and will mean some people won't participate even if they could.
I see the same risk involved with Apple TV's branding; Apple TV works great on Xbox, on NVIDIA Shield and on PC. I'm sure though there are a lot of people who just decide that shows like Foundation and subscriptions like MLS Season's Pass just aren't for them. I don't know if it is a 5% or a 20% drop but it has to be real.
I see the same risk involved with Apple TV's branding; Apple TV works great on Xbox, on NVIDIA Shield and on PC. I'm sure though there are a lot of people who just decide that shows like Foundation and subscriptions like MLS Season's Pass just aren't for them. I don't know if it is a 5% or a 20% drop but it has to be real.
The Apple TV one is particularly bad due to them naming the service, the box, and the app the same thing. One of them has a + tacked on, who knows which.
As long as they don’t start naming other things Invite, they might avoid that issue. Although maybe they’ll name their HomePod with a screen that and we’re back to square one.
As long as they don’t start naming other things Invite, they might avoid that issue. Although maybe they’ll name their HomePod with a screen that and we’re back to square one.
I very rarely interact with any Apple tech. Recently I wanted to watch Severance, so I signed up for a trial period of Apple TV. It even worked on Firefox on my Linux desktop. But I only get 1080p video, while my screen is 1440p. The show didn't look good, and I found that yes, you can only get 1080p if you're not watching through an Apple device. I would have been happy to become a subscriber of the streaming service, but not if it looks ugly on my PC, so I didn't continue the trial.
I'm sure Apple has data showing that offering higher-res video on non-Apple hardware isn't worth it, but this experience felt like a perfect match for the rest of my experience with Apple - if you want to use their software but not hardware, fuck you. If you want to use their hardware and software with a different workflow than they intended, fuck you too.
I'm sure Apple has data showing that offering higher-res video on non-Apple hardware isn't worth it, but this experience felt like a perfect match for the rest of my experience with Apple - if you want to use their software but not hardware, fuck you. If you want to use their hardware and software with a different workflow than they intended, fuck you too.
Do any mainstream streaming services offer you greater than 1080p on desktop Linux? I had thought that none of them allow it due to the perception of weaker DRM. And because 90% of consumers watching on desktop really care/notice
I can't say I care that much: 1080p quality pixels are really good, I'd prefer that to messy 4k with visible blocking artifacts.
I am no Apple sympathiser, and I use Firefox religiously, but to be fair to Apple Firefox streaming support and implementation is the worst of all the browsers.
Yeah I've heard similar, although I'm surprised you got 1080p out of Apple TV on Linux.
The streaming services landscape is very weird in general. Lots about DRM or what have you that cause very bizarre rules like Netflix only allowing Opera on linux to play full 1080, or how on mac Edge only does 720. Some of them refusing to show anything over 720p on browsers no matter which platform. Of course some have workarounds through extensions.
Certainly not the seamless experience one would have hoped from the switch away from cable services!
The streaming services landscape is very weird in general. Lots about DRM or what have you that cause very bizarre rules like Netflix only allowing Opera on linux to play full 1080, or how on mac Edge only does 720. Some of them refusing to show anything over 720p on browsers no matter which platform. Of course some have workarounds through extensions.
Certainly not the seamless experience one would have hoped from the switch away from cable services!
As a big fan of Apple TV boxes and a medium fan of Apple TV+, I can't agree with this strongly enough. It's such an unforced error.
It's so unnecessary to call everything "Apple something" when they've had great success creating recognizable brand names like "iPod", "iPhone", and "Macintosh".
Calling it "Apple TV+" just feels like both the set-top box and the streaming service wanted the name "Apple TV" and neither side was budging.
It's so unnecessary to call everything "Apple something" when they've had great success creating recognizable brand names like "iPod", "iPhone", and "Macintosh".
Calling it "Apple TV+" just feels like both the set-top box and the streaming service wanted the name "Apple TV" and neither side was budging.
Seriously - not sure what they were thinking - but this confuses the hell out of everyone (especially if they have the Apple TV+ app installed on their smart TV directly and an Apple TV physical box hooked to the same TV)
Let's just hope they don't start producing TVs (the screens) alongside all of this!
I'm watching Apple TV+ on my Apple TV connected to my Apple TV running Apple TV.
One of the rare marketing misses for Apple is naming the app, box, and service (with + added on) the same.
I was shocked at how bad the onboarding experience for Mac is in 2025. I replaced a dying but well seasoned Alienware laptop with a M4 mini, my wife was furious about 'ads everywhere' I mean, Microsoft is notorious for the unwanted solicitations that come with Windows but the nagging pop-ups that are barely altered from 1984 modal dialogs [1], dock crammed with unwanted applications, terrible Safari experience without ad blocker, need Apple account to install ad blocker (at least you can log into Windows with a Microsoft account.) So far as I can tell I didn't even get the 3 months of Apple TV that comes with an iPad.
[1] OG mac, not Orwell. At least Microsoft nags look like HTML.
[1] OG mac, not Orwell. At least Microsoft nags look like HTML.
Software engineer here with an android phone. I've never bothered to look into Apple TV because I assumed it'd only be available on Apple devices. Similarly, I saw this post and thought there may be a reason for me to get an iPhone now as I assumed this would be available on apple devices only.
It's pretty good on Chromecast, though some of the media player design patterns don't quite translate to non-apple.
> "there may be a reason for me to get an iPhone now as I assumed this would be available on apple devices only."
That's the objective. Green text and all. To force everyone to adopt one platform because of network effects and social stigma.
These platform plays by the god tier trillion dollar companies are insidious and should be given scrutiny by the DOJ / FTC.
A breakup of these platforms would make none of this matter. You could pick and choose services across devices. We might even see some competition for Android and iPhone if the DOJ would step in and break this up.
Big tech is too big. A breakup would oxygenate the entire tech sector. It would probably even make the MAGMA stock go up because the sum of parts are being given away for free just to get eyeballs.
Billions of dollars are being given away for free to scrape in network effect advantages. It's at a level where competition from new players is virtually impossible. They can tax anything that moves. Every transaction, every relationship, every quanta of information.
That's the objective. Green text and all. To force everyone to adopt one platform because of network effects and social stigma.
These platform plays by the god tier trillion dollar companies are insidious and should be given scrutiny by the DOJ / FTC.
A breakup of these platforms would make none of this matter. You could pick and choose services across devices. We might even see some competition for Android and iPhone if the DOJ would step in and break this up.
Big tech is too big. A breakup would oxygenate the entire tech sector. It would probably even make the MAGMA stock go up because the sum of parts are being given away for free just to get eyeballs.
Billions of dollars are being given away for free to scrape in network effect advantages. It's at a level where competition from new players is virtually impossible. They can tax anything that moves. Every transaction, every relationship, every quanta of information.
I'm only aware it doesn't need an Apple device because spouse does have an iPhone and was able to set it up on our Roku that way. I still assume that someone in the household does need an iPhone in order to get a subscription, although now I think about it probably that's not true.
You can subscribe to Apple TV+ directly through Amazon Prime.
There's a dedicated physical button for it on the Roku remote. Kind of hard to miss.
It will feel that way at a distance because it basically is.
To start, it's not a service but an app. Sure there is a web interface, but the focus on the app already sets the stage (which also puts macos only users in an interesting position).
Then non-Apple users probably can only respond when the sales pitch is "to contribute to Shared Albums, and engage with Apple Music playlists"
If I'm not an Apple user there will only be downsides to using this service compared to any other one.
To start, it's not a service but an app. Sure there is a web interface, but the focus on the app already sets the stage (which also puts macos only users in an interesting position).
Then non-Apple users probably can only respond when the sales pitch is "to contribute to Shared Albums, and engage with Apple Music playlists"
If I'm not an Apple user there will only be downsides to using this service compared to any other one.
[deleted]
As a non-exclusive, non-big tech and dead simple alternative, I’ve built Partey.io [1] myself.
[1] https://partey.io
[1] https://partey.io
> there are a lot of people who just decide that shows like Foundation and subscriptions like MLS Season's Pass just aren't for them.
This needs anti-trust breakup. Tech companies shouldn't be media giants. They're turning a once-healthy media industry into an attention economy platform play, giving it away below cost, and wringing a robust sector of the economy of its value.
It's disgusting that Apple and Amazon are doing this. Amazon owns James Bond. And they're a grocery store and primary care doctor, for god's sake. That's not good.
This is worse than Standard Oil and Ma Bell because they own our entire lives: eyeballs, financial transactions, business matters, commerce, and personal relationships.
This needs anti-trust breakup. Tech companies shouldn't be media giants. They're turning a once-healthy media industry into an attention economy platform play, giving it away below cost, and wringing a robust sector of the economy of its value.
It's disgusting that Apple and Amazon are doing this. Amazon owns James Bond. And they're a grocery store and primary care doctor, for god's sake. That's not good.
This is worse than Standard Oil and Ma Bell because they own our entire lives: eyeballs, financial transactions, business matters, commerce, and personal relationships.
"Conglom-O: We Own You."
...Just to highlight the absurdity of the situation. Literally cartoonish corruption.
...Just to highlight the absurdity of the situation. Literally cartoonish corruption.
> I think this being an Apple branded service is going to make this appear exclusionary and will mean some people won't participate even if they could.
Don't you think that's kind of the point? Do you think having green and blue messaging bubbles was unintentional?
Don't you think that's kind of the point? Do you think having green and blue messaging bubbles was unintentional?
Yes it was intentional, but this is a different case. If a meaningful percentage of people don't think they can attend an event because they don't own an iPhone, that's a big problem for adoption of this product. Whether that will happen or not, I have no idea, but I think that's what the person you responded to was saying.
[deleted]
This era of new experimental apps from Apple (Invites, Journal, Sports) has me excited about the future of app design. Vibrant colors, bold personality-driven typography, etc. The SwiftUI style onboarding screen that features the carousel is really fun. This approach feels very Apple'y, but gives me more freedom to explore designs for my own app to have its own unique voice on iOS, while still feeling in-family with Apple's other more experimental UI.
There are a few misses.
- I already declined a friend's invite, but that doesn't get auto filtered away, so my "decline" is still the primary thing the app has to show me. It's still my only invite, so maybe it gets filtered to the back of the card stack if there are multiple?
- I also don't seem to be able to see friends I know who were invited to the party (but have not yet responded). Perhaps it was because it was shared as an invite URL in a group chat rather than manually inviting everyone?
There are a few misses.
- I already declined a friend's invite, but that doesn't get auto filtered away, so my "decline" is still the primary thing the app has to show me. It's still my only invite, so maybe it gets filtered to the back of the card stack if there are multiple?
- I also don't seem to be able to see friends I know who were invited to the party (but have not yet responded). Perhaps it was because it was shared as an invite URL in a group chat rather than manually inviting everyone?
It might be thought of as a bug but I love that the Apple Sports app announces scores for a live game before it hits TV.
In this day and age of everyone multitasking ... that's a hell of a great feature to be able to say "guys look!".
For a while I was amazing my kids predicting touchdowns, but they caught on ;)
In this day and age of everyone multitasking ... that's a hell of a great feature to be able to say "guys look!".
For a while I was amazing my kids predicting touchdowns, but they caught on ;)
Less latency is a feature, not a bug. We've just grown too used to latency in everything we use.
The lag between OTA broadcast and cable/streaming is insanely bad. We had several screens tuned in to World Cup, and the group watching the OTA broadcast would cheer 15-20 seconds before the cable/streaming screens would. Knowing it exists is one thing, but seeing it in that manner puts it on a whole other level
We used to use that to our advantage; put the radio on the ballgame, put the TV on MLB.TV, and if something exciting happened we could get over to the TV in time to watch it.
What's annoying is when you get an out-of-bound popup while you're trying to watch the game! I don't want to know that "opposing team hit a grand slam" whilst I'm watching the pitcher at 3-2 and bases loaded.
What's annoying is when you get an out-of-bound popup while you're trying to watch the game! I don't want to know that "opposing team hit a grand slam" whilst I'm watching the pitcher at 3-2 and bases loaded.
Why does it matter that information from a sports event that you are 1000 miles away from gets to you 3 seconds later?
Why do you care? Why is it a negative?
Why do you care? Why is it a negative?
Where do you come up with 3 seconds when I said 15-20 seconds later?
The World Cup I was referring to was the infamous match where a player received 3 yellow cards, and the delay from cable was so long that the OTA viewers (a Spanish language broadcast) had time to come running in to ask if that made any more sense in English. But the English broadcast had not yet seen it.
It was just bizarre. It's negative because it's annoying AF. But since you want to minimize things by making up numbers to attempt to make a point instead of accepting the provided information, there's no way we'll ever see eye to eye.
The World Cup I was referring to was the infamous match where a player received 3 yellow cards, and the delay from cable was so long that the OTA viewers (a Spanish language broadcast) had time to come running in to ask if that made any more sense in English. But the English broadcast had not yet seen it.
It was just bizarre. It's negative because it's annoying AF. But since you want to minimize things by making up numbers to attempt to make a point instead of accepting the provided information, there's no way we'll ever see eye to eye.
3 seconds would not matter to me. As it is, latencies are much higher and afford time for my family group chat (WhatsApp) to "spoil" events that I have not yet seen. I don't want to ignore the chat. :(
Sounds like a good way to ruin the excitement of watching a sports game with friends.
The journal app is freaking garbage. It took 2 major iOS versions before they added the ability to export your notes!
It's always nice to see some first-party apps from Apple[0], but historically the "iPhone-only social networking" hasn't been very successful — iTunes Ping or Game Center haven't been a huge hit, while group messaging in iMessage has only gained some traction within the US and virtually non-existent almost everywhere else.
---
[0] One can even say "first first-party party app" in this case :)
---
[0] One can even say "first first-party party app" in this case :)
“iPhone-only social networking” has been very successful (amongst my US-based peer group, at least), once you include iMessage - that’s the point. I don’t know much about apple invites, but if it integrates well into iMessaging then this is a very strong play.
Though iMessage largely works in part because it's pretty much transparent if you send a text message.
I’m not sure I understand the “though” in this message but yeah, definitely the user interface of this social network is messaging.
Just the way I wrote the reply. It's unnecessary. Yes, you send a text and it's iMessage or not iMessage. Doesn't matter. There are some nuances if you're on your Mac with your phone off/on an international SIM (which I admit to not totally understanding).
Fortunately you don't need everyone to be on iOS to reply. So you can send your Android using friends invited and they'll just get a weblink.
Unfortunately you need an iPhone to create the invite, or contribute anything else than a reply. They have to know their uncoolness is tolerated but not welcomed in the walled garden.
Mission Accomplished. iOS is a significantly large enough market that it will have some success for those looking to replace FB/evite.
You can say the same thing about FB/Whatsapp or any other social network - you have to be in-network to get the invite even.
Looking forward to testing this out for some events.
You can say the same thing about FB/Whatsapp or any other social network - you have to be in-network to get the invite even.
Looking forward to testing this out for some events.
Most social networks don't have a $5-600 buy-in cost though.
I just spent $70 to send out birthday party invites to 40 parents on Evite. The free version sends an invite with ads, links to Amazon, and other tacky stuff. As an iPhone user with two kids switching to iCloud+ is cheaper than the alternatives. And I think many other parents will agree.
...Why?
The competition I see for this is partiful (https://partiful.com/), which is free, handles invites for folks without accounts (I don't have one, I am invited to parties via text message), and is clearly the inspiration/competition apples for this app given the visual similarities.
The competition I see for this is partiful (https://partiful.com/), which is free, handles invites for folks without accounts (I don't have one, I am invited to parties via text message), and is clearly the inspiration/competition apples for this app given the visual similarities.
Free how? Who pays? Just benevolence?
Simple: I’ve never heard of it until this thread. I get probably 20 birthday party invites a year from Silicon Valley-type families, and they are all using Evite or Paperless Post. There was a time when I would have looked for alternatives or rolled my own solution, but living busy toddler life means I pick my battles and grumble about it on Hacker News :)
I think they both used to be cheaper, but now they’re focused on profits. Same as Partiful will do eventually.
I think they both used to be cheaper, but now they’re focused on profits. Same as Partiful will do eventually.
Amusingly, I've never heard of either of those. Partiful is much more oriented towards less "professional" parties, it's replacing what was the facebook event segment of a lot of my social circle event organizing.
I'd be pretty peeved to spend any money on such a service, and many of my friends simply couldn't.
I'd be pretty peeved to spend any money on such a service, and many of my friends simply couldn't.
The cheapest iCloud+ plan is $0.99/mo., which a lot of people are already on just for backup of photos and videos.
I'm talking about the phone. You can't access this app without an iPhone.
Your argument is the same as “Walmart has a $25,000 entry ticket because you can’t access Walmart without a car.”
There are lots of ways to buy things from walmart without $25,000.
But to consider this more realistically: yes, one of the reasons I don't shop at walmart is because I don't own a car, and the closes Walmart to me is over 2 hours away on public transit, whereas the closest target is 15 minutes away, and amazon doesn't require me to leave my house.
Walmart is fine with that because me not shopping there doesn't make the store less attractive to others, but with social media it does. Me not using the iphone-only social media because it is behind a $500 or $1000 paywall makes it less useful for other people, especially when there are free alternatives around.
But to consider this more realistically: yes, one of the reasons I don't shop at walmart is because I don't own a car, and the closes Walmart to me is over 2 hours away on public transit, whereas the closest target is 15 minutes away, and amazon doesn't require me to leave my house.
Walmart is fine with that because me not shopping there doesn't make the store less attractive to others, but with social media it does. Me not using the iphone-only social media because it is behind a $500 or $1000 paywall makes it less useful for other people, especially when there are free alternatives around.
I sure wish they did. It would reduce the number of bots to nearly zero.
In the US yeah it is. In the rest of the world, not so much.
The US market is probably big enough to make the service a success. Sometimes you don't need to be the biggest to be good enough.
[deleted]
You can create an invite online. No Apple hardware needed.
Will it show them as green or blue though? :)
So that's a green bubble situation. You get a subpar experience, your iPhone friends get a subpar experience from including you, and eventually they'll yell at you "well just get an iPhone already!"
I don't really see that at all. I have a circle of friends, some of whom have iPhones and some not (to say nothing of companies/doctors sending me reminders and the like), and the non-iPhones seem to work just fine. I sure don't care what color their text bubble is.
It still requires people to read a text message.
It may as well be delivered via carrier pigeon outside the US.
It may as well be delivered via carrier pigeon outside the US.
Genuine question, is SMS text delivery unreliable where in certain countries?
SMS text delivery has always been sporadically unreliable for me. The cases where the messages are delayed by several minutes or hours are almost as problematic as the cases where they never arrive at all.
It doesn't seem to be specific to any country, though some are worse than others. Definitely seems to be a "best effort" service everywhere.
It doesn't seem to be specific to any country, though some are worse than others. Definitely seems to be a "best effort" service everywhere.
It's unneeded because phones have affordable/free access to the Internet these days, SMS is a relic of the 20th century.
Apple may not be exactly jumping in joy about it but, even if it's mostly only useful for people in the US, they probably don't see that as a showstopper either.
And the alternative on iOS is...? What exactly?
RCS is a flaming trash dump of failure.
RCS is a flaming trash dump of failure.
Other messaging platforms; the one most commonly cited seems to be WhatsApp.
On iOS? Don't make me laugh. Apple will die before they implement custom configurable messaging providers in iOS.
I have a US number and live in Switzerland. At least for me, I only receive SMS messages whenever I visit the US -- the rest of the time they're just dropped and I'll never see them.
(Doesn't really bother me, my friends and I all use WhatsApp/etc. anyway.)
n=1 though, maybe this is some quirk of my phone provider.
(Doesn't really bother me, my friends and I all use WhatsApp/etc. anyway.)
n=1 though, maybe this is some quirk of my phone provider.
Somehow they're unreliable just in the US. I had someone think I was mad at them because when I texted them to hang out it never made it. Had to remember to switch messaging apps.
I think they were on a cheap prepaid plan though.
I think they were on a cheap prepaid plan though.
iMessage/SMS is just one of the many sending options in the share sheet. WhatsApp or whatever your country uses will be there too.
In this case they don't need an Iphone to RSVP though. Seems like a good implementation. The challenge is for the organizer not the folks rsvping.
I'm unclear what your comment has to do with this app, which isn't a social network, and which communicates just fine with other phones.
If the plethora of iCalendar email attachments I've seen over the years (despite not owning any Apple devices or using their software) is any indication, I'm not sure that only being on Apple devices will be a significant barrier to people trying to coordinate stuff with this.
iCalendar files predate Mac OS X, and are an ietf standard
If you have watched the launch video, and if there was one to begin with, did they say [First Time Ever in an iCloud+ Account]™?
I don't see how this competes with partiful. Feels like it'll be another half baked never updated app from apple. I wish they'd open their apis and integrations more. Feels silly that these apps get first class access to apple apis, meanwhile better made apps are forced to do weird workarounds, or simply have no integrations.
I see this app as more like the Notes, iMessage or Freeform apps. There are tons of apps out there that do XYZ better, but Apple wants to ship a polished version that does 90% of everything the average user needs. It accomplishes three things (in my eyes):
1. It helps grow Apple's ecosystem by covering just enough ground to make third-party alternatives less necessary for most users.
2. It reduces one of the major "sticky" points that keep people in Facebook's own moat. Events and Marketplace are the two reasons I still use Facebook.
3. It encourages competition from the people who want to do that last 10% better than Apple's apps, raising the baseline and hopefully forcing innovation as well. Those apps lead to more App Store revenue, so, cynically, it's a win-win for Apple.
1. It helps grow Apple's ecosystem by covering just enough ground to make third-party alternatives less necessary for most users.
2. It reduces one of the major "sticky" points that keep people in Facebook's own moat. Events and Marketplace are the two reasons I still use Facebook.
3. It encourages competition from the people who want to do that last 10% better than Apple's apps, raising the baseline and hopefully forcing innovation as well. Those apps lead to more App Store revenue, so, cynically, it's a win-win for Apple.
It’s based on the new GroupKit API, which sounds like something that would be available to other apps in the future. Otherwise it would just use some private API.
You're being disingenuous, or you're incompetent, if you think Apple isn't going to keep this API in their closed garden.
partiful is destined for the trash like meetup, evite, etc. Once they need to actually make money, they’ll ruin the platform. 100% guaranteed.
it’s a great platform for the moment, enjoy it while it lasts.
it’s a great platform for the moment, enjoy it while it lasts.
They're shipping the org chart: this app is someone's ticket to a promotion.
If anyone's looking for an open source alternative (and maybe wants to contribute to it) we're working on it here! [1]
We actually started before this was announced, and initially it was developed for a somewhat different use case (more focusing on "recurring invites"), but since it was asked a few times, I think we can offer a good alternative with it. [2]
[1]: https://github.com/gruprsvp/grup.
[2]: https://github.com/gruprsvp/grup/discussions/148
We actually started before this was announced, and initially it was developed for a somewhat different use case (more focusing on "recurring invites"), but since it was asked a few times, I think we can offer a good alternative with it. [2]
[1]: https://github.com/gruprsvp/grup.
[2]: https://github.com/gruprsvp/grup/discussions/148
Looks neat, but I won't use it or recommend it to anyone because it's built with Flutter.
I understand your reasons for choosing it, but that does not change that Flutter apps feel completely _wrong_ on any platform except Android, but most especially on iOS/macOS and the web. (This is unsurprising because Flutter is essentially a modern day implementation of Swing complete with personalities, and it's just as incorrect in its styling as Swing was. It's worse for the web because Flutter explicitly eschews standard web technologies in favour of either one big canvas or lots of little canvases.)
Best of luck.
I understand your reasons for choosing it, but that does not change that Flutter apps feel completely _wrong_ on any platform except Android, but most especially on iOS/macOS and the web. (This is unsurprising because Flutter is essentially a modern day implementation of Swing complete with personalities, and it's just as incorrect in its styling as Swing was. It's worse for the web because Flutter explicitly eschews standard web technologies in favour of either one big canvas or lots of little canvases.)
Best of luck.
What a dumb take
gioazzi, great work! Keep making apps that are useful and fun for you. I will definitely recommend your app with my friends
gioazzi, great work! Keep making apps that are useful and fun for you. I will definitely recommend your app with my friends
You’re welcome to think that, but it's not a dumb take — it is an aesthetic and technical take (you know, de gustibus non est disputandum).
My attention is valuable (at least to me and those around me), and I choose not to waste that attention on applications that are built with a framework that quite deliberately disrespects the platforms I choose while presenting a badly drawn version of the thinnest layer.
On macOS and iOS, Flutter pretends to conform to platform standards, but it does so very badly (I can always tell if I'm using a Flutter app; it's just off…and my battery life suffers because Flutter is such a bad citizen). Honestly, I probably wouldn't hate Flutter on iOS if it didn't pretend to conform to iOS standards while missing the mark (just like every Google app misses the mark on what an iOS app should look like; it's just wrong).
On the web, Flutter is even worse by pretending that there's only one HTML tag, <canvas>, and throwing away _all_ of the rest of HTML to do everything else that HTML does, but worse and less accessibly. That, ultimately, is unforgivable and a waste of everyone's time.
Regardless of how useful gioazzi's project may be, the technical choices made put it well outside of the boundaries where I am comfortable recommending its use to anyone — and that's fine. I posted a similar take about someone who did a Show HN about a project they made which required a Google login; I was interested in seeing what they had done until I saw that requirement. That technical choice, while a valid one, put it well outside of my "I will try this thing at all" zone.
I shared this stance because I know I’m not alone, and people need to know if their architectural choices put them outside of the market they are targeting. I might or might not be in their market, but it's still a useful thing to know that there's this one asshole in Toronto who won't use it because they took the "easy" way out for pseudo-cross-platform support. (I do not have the same reaction to React Native, but that's because it ultimately doesn't try to emulate the platform.)
My attention is valuable (at least to me and those around me), and I choose not to waste that attention on applications that are built with a framework that quite deliberately disrespects the platforms I choose while presenting a badly drawn version of the thinnest layer.
On macOS and iOS, Flutter pretends to conform to platform standards, but it does so very badly (I can always tell if I'm using a Flutter app; it's just off…and my battery life suffers because Flutter is such a bad citizen). Honestly, I probably wouldn't hate Flutter on iOS if it didn't pretend to conform to iOS standards while missing the mark (just like every Google app misses the mark on what an iOS app should look like; it's just wrong).
On the web, Flutter is even worse by pretending that there's only one HTML tag, <canvas>, and throwing away _all_ of the rest of HTML to do everything else that HTML does, but worse and less accessibly. That, ultimately, is unforgivable and a waste of everyone's time.
Regardless of how useful gioazzi's project may be, the technical choices made put it well outside of the boundaries where I am comfortable recommending its use to anyone — and that's fine. I posted a similar take about someone who did a Show HN about a project they made which required a Google login; I was interested in seeing what they had done until I saw that requirement. That technical choice, while a valid one, put it well outside of my "I will try this thing at all" zone.
I shared this stance because I know I’m not alone, and people need to know if their architectural choices put them outside of the market they are targeting. I might or might not be in their market, but it's still a useful thing to know that there's this one asshole in Toronto who won't use it because they took the "easy" way out for pseudo-cross-platform support. (I do not have the same reaction to React Native, but that's because it ultimately doesn't try to emulate the platform.)
Well of course as any technical choice this is a compromise These are all very valid points, that we did consider, but I think the alternatives were just not as good.
I feel less strongly about apps not looking like system apps; in fact, I kind of dislike apps that try too hard to look like the settings page: I like when they bring some variety, some personality, something that makes them stand out. Though I agree that broken interactions are unbearable, e.g. apps that break the "swipe back" gesture.
It could have been a web app as well (in fact, the initial version was), but some offline functionality was needed, and service workers messing up caching and iOS not being a great player with PWA, it just ended up being more painful than it should have been.
Or we could have built 3 apps, which I would have loved (but we are a team of 3, and working on a bunch of other things at the same time). Flutter does have a fairly good developer experience (its hot reload cycle is unmatched in my opinion), but of course native development, with all the support libraries you get from the platform, is on a different level. (What even is native though? Is UIKit "more native" than SwiftUI? Is Safari native? And how about the web apps you open in Safari? It's JS code, but at some point it's compiled to ARM instructions, now running from the very same memory pages as Safari, does that make the web app native?)
Having said that, it's not like I need to convince you to try out our app, it's good that we have options and probably Apple Invites is what works best for you!
But out of curiosity, when is the last time you did try out a Flutter app? Because they have been improving a lot, in fact for quite some time they ran better on iOS than on Android thanks to the new Impeller rendering engine (now default on Android as well)[1]
They did some work for accessibility on Web, too.[2]
BTW it's funny you mention React Native, I last built something with it a long time ago... and it wasn't that good - but I just realised I do use some React Native apps right now, so I guess they also improved a lot; I should give it a shot again!
[1]: https://docs.flutter.dev/perf/impeller [2]: https://docs.flutter.dev/ui/accessibility-and-internationali...
I feel less strongly about apps not looking like system apps; in fact, I kind of dislike apps that try too hard to look like the settings page: I like when they bring some variety, some personality, something that makes them stand out. Though I agree that broken interactions are unbearable, e.g. apps that break the "swipe back" gesture.
It could have been a web app as well (in fact, the initial version was), but some offline functionality was needed, and service workers messing up caching and iOS not being a great player with PWA, it just ended up being more painful than it should have been.
Or we could have built 3 apps, which I would have loved (but we are a team of 3, and working on a bunch of other things at the same time). Flutter does have a fairly good developer experience (its hot reload cycle is unmatched in my opinion), but of course native development, with all the support libraries you get from the platform, is on a different level. (What even is native though? Is UIKit "more native" than SwiftUI? Is Safari native? And how about the web apps you open in Safari? It's JS code, but at some point it's compiled to ARM instructions, now running from the very same memory pages as Safari, does that make the web app native?)
Having said that, it's not like I need to convince you to try out our app, it's good that we have options and probably Apple Invites is what works best for you!
But out of curiosity, when is the last time you did try out a Flutter app? Because they have been improving a lot, in fact for quite some time they ran better on iOS than on Android thanks to the new Impeller rendering engine (now default on Android as well)[1]
They did some work for accessibility on Web, too.[2]
BTW it's funny you mention React Native, I last built something with it a long time ago... and it wasn't that good - but I just realised I do use some React Native apps right now, so I guess they also improved a lot; I should give it a shot again!
[1]: https://docs.flutter.dev/perf/impeller [2]: https://docs.flutter.dev/ui/accessibility-and-internationali...
It's been a while since I knowingly tried a Flutter app. Most of the ones that I have used even temporarily are Google garbage, and they are so bad that I will not give any Flutter app another try. I also fundamentally think that the technical approach of Flutter is wrong and should be resisted. You now not only have the "build platform lagging system platform" problem (something that happens to all non-native development options), but you have to trust that the Flutter people understand the target systems well enough to make the "draw" work (I think they fail every single time, just like Swing with its "windows" or "mac" personalities did).
But platform appearance is the thinnest layer (and Flutter can't even get that right because of its model). Design is about how something works (and a little about how it looks). Flutter apps don't look like iOS/macOS apps, but more than that, they don't feel like iOS/macOS apps. Flutter apps on the web will never feel like a proper web citizen, because they aren't — they're either a single canvas or a lot of canvases that have to have accessibility hacks instead of building on the platform.
If Flutter as a system decided to take the Swing approach of having its own "native" look and feel (https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/java-swing-look-feel/), I would not expect Flutter apps to conform to the high standard that I’ve expressed here. But the moment that they said "we can do better than Apple with the Cupertino personality", they failed — and IMO so does everyone who uses that.
(We had someone at work try to push Flutter as a cross-platform, including web, engine a couple of years ago. It was a complete disaster because he didn't know Flutter, didn't know Dart, and wasn't actually very good at architecting anything in the end, either. His React apps were nearly as bad. It took someone less than three weeks to rewrite the demo app from Flutter — which took 2 people ~6 months to build — to React Native and it did more, more smoothly.)
But platform appearance is the thinnest layer (and Flutter can't even get that right because of its model). Design is about how something works (and a little about how it looks). Flutter apps don't look like iOS/macOS apps, but more than that, they don't feel like iOS/macOS apps. Flutter apps on the web will never feel like a proper web citizen, because they aren't — they're either a single canvas or a lot of canvases that have to have accessibility hacks instead of building on the platform.
If Flutter as a system decided to take the Swing approach of having its own "native" look and feel (https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/java-swing-look-feel/), I would not expect Flutter apps to conform to the high standard that I’ve expressed here. But the moment that they said "we can do better than Apple with the Cupertino personality", they failed — and IMO so does everyone who uses that.
(We had someone at work try to push Flutter as a cross-platform, including web, engine a couple of years ago. It was a complete disaster because he didn't know Flutter, didn't know Dart, and wasn't actually very good at architecting anything in the end, either. His React apps were nearly as bad. It took someone less than three weeks to rewrite the demo app from Flutter — which took 2 people ~6 months to build — to React Native and it did more, more smoothly.)
> Flutter apps feel completely _wrong_ on any platform except Android [...] Flutter explicitly eschews standard web technologies in favour of either one big canvas or lots of little canvases.
I think you're confused about how Flutter works on Android. It's not native to Android, it uses canvas with custom drawn implementations of most components there too – same as it does for iOS/macOS/web.
I think you're confused about how Flutter works on Android. It's not native to Android, it uses canvas with custom drawn implementations of most components there too – same as it does for iOS/macOS/web.
Oh, I’m not confused; there is no "native" for Flutter. I just don't think that Android has a meaningful platform aesthetic‡ and most people who use Android tend to expect nothing to necessarily make sense (these are the same people who use Windows).¶
‡ I periodically try Android devices and bounce off them because I find the UI to be obtuse or deliberately built for dark patterns. I was helping a neighbour with his new-to-him Pixel 8a and to see the pictures he had taken with his camera on the phone, he had to sign in with a Google account — and then we disabled the backup because he didn't actually care to back up the photos (they are ephemeral for his purposes). It took 45 minutes to figure this out because the settings and controls can only be set when you have already signed into the damned account.
¶ I am not saying that the people who expect nothing from Android would find iOS any better; they have just been trained through decades of bad UI/UX in Windows and Android (because they're cheaper) to understand that they have to fight with their computing devices to get anything done, so they don't expect anything better … and is it ever delivered to them, in spades. Flutter, here, does not help — but at least it doesn't clash with the fifteen different "platform" styles on your typical Samsung Android device.
‡ I periodically try Android devices and bounce off them because I find the UI to be obtuse or deliberately built for dark patterns. I was helping a neighbour with his new-to-him Pixel 8a and to see the pictures he had taken with his camera on the phone, he had to sign in with a Google account — and then we disabled the backup because he didn't actually care to back up the photos (they are ephemeral for his purposes). It took 45 minutes to figure this out because the settings and controls can only be set when you have already signed into the damned account.
¶ I am not saying that the people who expect nothing from Android would find iOS any better; they have just been trained through decades of bad UI/UX in Windows and Android (because they're cheaper) to understand that they have to fight with their computing devices to get anything done, so they don't expect anything better … and is it ever delivered to them, in spades. Flutter, here, does not help — but at least it doesn't clash with the fifteen different "platform" styles on your typical Samsung Android device.
Unfortunately, I have to hope this doesn't see widespread adoption. If this becomes the standard it will just add to already existing social pressure to get an iPhone in the US.
> anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.
But no-one without an Apple Account can create them - you can only respond to Apple-having friends. There is social pressure in that too.
You need a Google Account to use Google Calendar.
Anyone can have an Apple Account whether or not they own an Apple Device.
In this case, too, you can create Invites on icloud.com on non-Apple devices. Including the webpage seems nicely responsive and can probably make them in an Android Chrome tab if you wanted.
The only remaining obstacle is that it isn't a free feature of an Apple Account, but requires an iCloud+ subscription. But that's useful for Apple Music and Apple TV+ and other products, too, many of which work just fine on non-Apple devices as well.
Anyone can have an Apple Account whether or not they own an Apple Device.
In this case, too, you can create Invites on icloud.com on non-Apple devices. Including the webpage seems nicely responsive and can probably make them in an Android Chrome tab if you wanted.
The only remaining obstacle is that it isn't a free feature of an Apple Account, but requires an iCloud+ subscription. But that's useful for Apple Music and Apple TV+ and other products, too, many of which work just fine on non-Apple devices as well.
If I'm inviting someone and they RSVP, that transaction is successful and done to me.
If they use some other system (and people do) I'll respond via that system.
If they use some other system (and people do) I'll respond via that system.
A company creating a useful tool that encourages people to buy their product is incredibly boring, typical, and not at all controversial until it's Apple doing it.
Im just excited about a possible alternative to FB for this kinda stuff.
It may have something to do with the duopolistic nature of mobile phones and the absolute size and dominance of Apple.
I suspect it has a lot more to do with the concentration of mobile devs and FOSS types here, along with people who really can't understand that not everyone wants their phone to be something other than "Working out of the box."
Ah yes the classic false dichotomy, that it either has to be closed/proprietary/locked down and "just works" or it can be open but unusable. In reality the two are completely orthogonal. There's nothing magical about publishing the source that suddenly changes the code or the product and breaks it. If Apple open sourced ever line of code they have tonight, would iPhones suddenly stop working?
So, what's stopping you from becoming Apple's competition? If a significant number of people crave your idea of FOSS and you have ideas to make a superior product, I'm sure the market will reward you.
Did you ever see any Linux laptop in a store? They do have some market share but never existed to the ordinary people.
Also, GNU/Linux phones exist (Librem 5 is my daily driver). However without Apple's budgets, you can't create the same smooth experience. You just can't compete with the duopoly.
Also, GNU/Linux phones exist (Librem 5 is my daily driver). However without Apple's budgets, you can't create the same smooth experience. You just can't compete with the duopoly.
So what you're saying is that alternatives do exist, but they aren't popular... that doesn't sound like a "duopoly" exists, it just sounds like Android and Apple cover the needs of the vast majority of people. I'm sure it's difficult to be part of a niche, but that doesn't mean that there's some conspiracy against you.
> I'm sure it's difficult to be part of a niche, but that doesn't mean that there's some conspiracy against you.
Yes, it does: https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/. Purism tried to created their own smartphone not relying on Apple and Google and it was almost impossible to find the necessary chips. Nobody wanted to share the schematics or open the drivers. People are just locked-in into the duopoly. It's impossible to use popular apps without it, like Whatsapp or even Signal (!).
Yes, it does: https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/. Purism tried to created their own smartphone not relying on Apple and Google and it was almost impossible to find the necessary chips. Nobody wanted to share the schematics or open the drivers. People are just locked-in into the duopoly. It's impossible to use popular apps without it, like Whatsapp or even Signal (!).
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think that's preferable to them being totally unable to RSVP but you're still going to be the friend that can't make the invite. It's comparable to iMessage. You can still talk to Android users but it's a notably worse experience.
Non-Apple users cant contribute to the playlist. No mention on the impact to the shared photo album. If its just a normal shared Photos.app album, non-apple users are locked out there, too.
Non Apple Music users cant contribute. There are currently around 93 million Apple Music subscribers.
To me this argument makes no sense. Apple should never introduce any new features or services to their ecosystem because it might increase “social pressure” to get an iPhone?
I would say the more a given app/feature has network effects the more invested I am in it being cross-platform. For example, iMessage and Facetime are highly social. Apple was resistant to adopting the RCS protocol for iMessage, though they eventually caved and now the experience of texting between iPhones and Androids is better for both parties so it seems preferable to me.
Meanwhile, we take it for granted that there is a protocol for audio calls and text messages but not for video calls. I would like to more easily video call people with iPhones, and doing so would be technically possible but I can't because Apple benefits from the network effect. If I were to get an iPhone it would not be because Apple did a better job at creating a video call feature, it will be because people I know have iPhones and I want to call them. This seems like it gives incumbents in the space a large advantage because they can compete on having a user base and not on quality.
Ironically, Apple itself developed such a protocol for events and RSVPs (ICS), at a time when they didn't have market dominance. This caught on and it is great. I can make a calendar event in Google Calendar, Outlook, or Apple Calendar and invite anyone from any of those platforms. They can RSVP and I can track their RSVPs and they can also create events in their systems and invite me. This is the kind of thing I like to encourage where possible.
Meanwhile, we take it for granted that there is a protocol for audio calls and text messages but not for video calls. I would like to more easily video call people with iPhones, and doing so would be technically possible but I can't because Apple benefits from the network effect. If I were to get an iPhone it would not be because Apple did a better job at creating a video call feature, it will be because people I know have iPhones and I want to call them. This seems like it gives incumbents in the space a large advantage because they can compete on having a user base and not on quality.
Ironically, Apple itself developed such a protocol for events and RSVPs (ICS), at a time when they didn't have market dominance. This caught on and it is great. I can make a calendar event in Google Calendar, Outlook, or Apple Calendar and invite anyone from any of those platforms. They can RSVP and I can track their RSVPs and they can also create events in their systems and invite me. This is the kind of thing I like to encourage where possible.
Apple Invites does provide ICS files for the events. (In the web version when not logged in to an Apple Account, after RSVPing.)
Technically vCal/iCal/ICS (whichever name you prefer) doesn't actually support RSVPs. It isn't in the standards documents. In ancient Microsoft nomenclature that pseudo-standard (de facto standard) for RSVPs is the "Schedule+ protocol" named after an ancient dead predecessor to Outlook's Calendar which originated it. I don't know what Google or Apple call it, and it is such a weird dance of (usually) auto-deleted email messages, so certainly has room for improvement as a protocol.
It would be neat to encourage a new "modern" standard there. Seems like something more web-based (JSON REST API?) than email-based might be a more "natural" API today. (Maybe Apple Invite can help lead the way, I don't know if that's on their TODO list.)
Technically vCal/iCal/ICS (whichever name you prefer) doesn't actually support RSVPs. It isn't in the standards documents. In ancient Microsoft nomenclature that pseudo-standard (de facto standard) for RSVPs is the "Schedule+ protocol" named after an ancient dead predecessor to Outlook's Calendar which originated it. I don't know what Google or Apple call it, and it is such a weird dance of (usually) auto-deleted email messages, so certainly has room for improvement as a protocol.
It would be neat to encourage a new "modern" standard there. Seems like something more web-based (JSON REST API?) than email-based might be a more "natural" API today. (Maybe Apple Invite can help lead the way, I don't know if that's on their TODO list.)
iTIP (RFC 5546) / iMIP (RFC 6047) are a standard for sending and responding to calendar invites, implemented on top of email.
Certainly some implementations are pretty poor, but in theory this is all standardised.
Certainly some implementations are pretty poor, but in theory this is all standardised.
Antitrust laws to prevent companies from abusing their market position.
The US Department of Justice is currently suing Apple for violating those antitrust laws [1]
[1] https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-mono...
The US Department of Justice is currently suing Apple for violating those antitrust laws [1]
[1] https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-mono...
That’s the point: get an iPhone or be left out. But don’t worry, there will be a web version…
Im literally sick over the thought of the increased social pressure
Your friends joking with you to get an iPhone is making you sick?
I mean this completely seriously and as a concerned internet stranger...if that is literally true for you, please go seek mental health services right now. That's not normal or healthy.
All my social circles where we communicate over SMS/RCS group text chats consist of a little gentle ribbing about "those darn green bubble people" and that's about the extent of it. The Android users occasionally respond in kind by showing off some cool new feature that Samsung or Google came up with that Apple hasn't copied yet and everybody laughs it all off.
All my social circles where we communicate over SMS/RCS group text chats consist of a little gentle ribbing about "those darn green bubble people" and that's about the extent of it. The Android users occasionally respond in kind by showing off some cool new feature that Samsung or Google came up with that Apple hasn't copied yet and everybody laughs it all off.
> anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.
Social pressures aren't real. I have never ever had a facebook account, instagram account, a linkedin account, an iphone or any other things people fall for.
Unless they add some basic functionality to include Android users, this is the evilest use of their walled garden yet.
> anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.
[deleted]
I'm skeptical of the implementation, given iMessage. I'm sure Android users RSVPs will show up in a green toxic fume cloud or some such.
Did you know that in iMessage, Android user texts are the same color as iOS user messages? It's true.
As the iOS user, it is your own messages that are green or blue depending on whether it was sent using iMessage or SMS. It's useful feedback about whether your message was sent on a reliable channel.
I know it became a whole thing and that Apple has allowed it to remain as such. But it's not really an apt analogy.
As the iOS user, it is your own messages that are green or blue depending on whether it was sent using iMessage or SMS. It's useful feedback about whether your message was sent on a reliable channel.
I know it became a whole thing and that Apple has allowed it to remain as such. But it's not really an apt analogy.
Do you not view RCS as being a reliable channel?
I don't view SMS as reliable. It was only a couple years ago that I switched to Signal for a friend after our texts back and forth had been silently dropped one too many times.
I don't know how long RCS has been around, but my impression is most or all of my messages until recently were SMS.
iMessage now says "Text Message - RCS" or "Text Message - SMS" in the text entry box which is better than the green/blue bubble thing (though it does still have that).
I don't know how long RCS has been around, but my impression is most or all of my messages until recently were SMS.
iMessage now says "Text Message - RCS" or "Text Message - SMS" in the text entry box which is better than the green/blue bubble thing (though it does still have that).
At a minimum, it isn't encrypted between iOS and Android users.
That's a very pessimistic way to bring that up.
I was thinking similar, except, "I wonder how this works with non-Apple users?". Instead of jumping straight to how evil this is.
I was thinking similar, except, "I wonder how this works with non-Apple users?". Instead of jumping straight to how evil this is.
From the third sentence of TFA:
> anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.
> anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.
The article also says "collaborative playlists allow Apple Music subscribers to create a curated event soundtrack" so there's clearly a subset of functionality that's only available for certain users. There's "integration with Maps and Weather", but how does that look like in Android? Can I still "contribute to Shared Albums"?
Shared Albums, Apple Web, are all available on the web.
You can generate a link to e-mail to anyone, which opens up a web page which you can RSVP from.
I tested it with a sample event and I don't see any way to RSVP without logging into an Apple account. Maybe I'm missing something?
> I tested it with a sample event and I don't see any way to RSVP without logging into an Apple account. Maybe I'm missing something?
You are. I explicitly created a burner email and invited it to an event.
When I navigated from the invite email I was prompted to sign in which I declined. It then allowed me to join the event after I confirmed with an emailed code.
On joining the event I was able to set my name and send a note.
You are. I explicitly created a burner email and invited it to an event.
When I navigated from the invite email I was prompted to sign in which I declined. It then allowed me to join the event after I confirmed with an emailed code.
On joining the event I was able to set my name and send a note.
The way I tested it was to create Share link, then navigate to it in an incognito window on Desktop and try to RSVP. I am still unable RSVP without login. Perhaps it works without login if you explicitly invite a certain email.
[deleted]
What's preventing Google from competing and making their own better version of this? I don't see where there's anything that Apple is doing here that couldn't be easily replicated by them using their own ecosystem.
Google would stuff it full of adverts and tracking. For that reason it wouldn’t be better.
Don't forget rename it a few times, add a messenger into it, then kill it.
That’s not Apple’s fault.
Google Invites: Invite your friends!
Google Invites is being discontinued.
Google Party: Invite your friends!
Google Party is being discontinued.
Google Gathering: Invite your friends!
Google Gathering is being discontinued.
Google Invites is being discontinued.
Google Party: Invite your friends!
Google Party is being discontinued.
Google Gathering: Invite your friends!
Google Gathering is being discontinued.
They did, a decade ago. Google Plus invites had all these features and more, and Google decided to kill them off, in the usual fashion
I'm not a fan of either doing this. I'm watching all open protocols slowly disappear and it's killing innovation in the industry.
then we will have 2 incompativle invite systems: form Apple and from Google.
The correct way to do this is to publish an open standard/API so 3rd parties can participate.
The correct way to do this is to publish an open standard/API so 3rd parties can participate.
Imagine being a teen with an Android in the Apple Invite age, the bullying will go crazy
The whole green bubble thing has got to be one of the stupidest status symbol things I've seen in a long time. Though I have no doubt there are many of them. If anything, it's maybe a good life lesson that many supposed status symbols are breathtakingly stupid to care about.
I don’t believe it’s just status symbol - until the recent RCS implementation having an Android phone in your group text meant that photos/videos would be awful MMS quality.
>some supposed status symbols are breathtakingly stupid to care about.
All status symbols are stupid, that's part of the point. That has never mattered. It doesn't matter how stupid a symbol is, it can still have tangible effects on you and your life.
Humans are social animals first and foremost, and are not rational in any way. Tribalism is literally the point.
All status symbols are stupid, that's part of the point. That has never mattered. It doesn't matter how stupid a symbol is, it can still have tangible effects on you and your life.
Humans are social animals first and foremost, and are not rational in any way. Tribalism is literally the point.
It's not the bubble color; it's that (early) iMessage groups were much better than SMS groups, and so if you added a greenie it resulted in a worse experience.
That's not so much the case anymore, from what I understand (even the "reactions") work decently well, now.
That's not so much the case anymore, from what I understand (even the "reactions") work decently well, now.
Possibly. My use of texting groups is relatively recent.
You're not entirely wrong but also not my nor Apple's problem. Things like universities can be status symbols but they're mostly not entirely status symbols. Plenty of other things like that too.
But if it's not bubble color, it will be the type of sneakers kids wear or whatever else is the fashion of the moment.
But if it's not bubble color, it will be the type of sneakers kids wear or whatever else is the fashion of the moment.
As if there was no bullying in any other age? Is Apple's walled garden really the source of this bullying? Teenagers can bully each other about anything.
[deleted]
The EU needs to regulate this
They don't need to. Android users can do the most important thing advertised here (RSVP) without the app or an iPhone. Also, hopefully the EU has better things to do than constantly force Apple to support Android users (for free!) at the same level of quality as their own customers.
They don't need to because you can RSVP from an Android device.
Do you really think so? I’m wary of walled gardens but as an EU citizen I think that we in the EU should try to innovate more and be more mindful of what regulations we put in place.
> Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription.
Maybe it's just me, but seems a bit extreme for what amounts to a fancy calendar invite.
Extreme? A subscription costs $1/mo and includes other features.
I thought everyone here has subscription fatigue already.
>other features
Yeah, for people who own Apple hardware...
Yeah, for people who own Apple hardware...
Of the 12 services/apps that show up in the iCloud web UI, only "Find My" isn't usable without Apple hardware.
Honestly I think it's still a large enough market to get traction. They can always open it up further if it really catches on.
the iBrand hasn't done a good job of explaining that no apple hardware product has to be bought, to sign up to this cloud.
In some ways, "Cloud, by Apple" would have been better because it could have had a subsidiary tagline 'open to anyone' -where iPhone, iPad are pretty solidly walled garden devices.
I'm not in marketing. I am sure smart marketing people would point out downsides. I just think iCloud "says" -not for me, unless I have an iPhone.
In some ways, "Cloud, by Apple" would have been better because it could have had a subsidiary tagline 'open to anyone' -where iPhone, iPad are pretty solidly walled garden devices.
I'm not in marketing. I am sure smart marketing people would point out downsides. I just think iCloud "says" -not for me, unless I have an iPhone.
Even if some iCloud+ things could work without any Apple devices, I'm not sure why anyone would want it. Most of them only get value from the integration (like hide my email, storage space, etc).
Yes. I think thats true but possibly a result of the strategy to make it compelling to move into the ecology. "Brought to you by apple" would be more openly "meh, you can make other choices" -Apple TV for instance, drives fine through devices able to do the API calls with apple approved client software, its not "sorry go buy an Apple TV" only.
Apple don't sell the Roku or Chromecast devices, basically. So, for Apple TV it's clear you don't have to be iFriendly only.
Probably I'm seduced by how amazingly cheap 1TB of Apple cloud is, compared to the others. Its a LOT cheaper than Google 1 or Microsoft's offering, discounting all the other side benefits.
Apple don't sell the Roku or Chromecast devices, basically. So, for Apple TV it's clear you don't have to be iFriendly only.
Probably I'm seduced by how amazingly cheap 1TB of Apple cloud is, compared to the others. Its a LOT cheaper than Google 1 or Microsoft's offering, discounting all the other side benefits.
Bizarre to launch this feature outside of a regular event given this limitation. It is a nothingburger of a feature (just a clone of existing services) AND it requires you to have a paid subscription.
If I had to assign a dollar value to being able to use this feature on my phone, it would be pennies per month.
If I had to assign a dollar value to being able to use this feature on my phone, it would be pennies per month.
Yeah, that’s a dealbreaker right there. On a positive note, hopefully, this will be enough impedance to prevent widespread adoption in my social circle.
“Additionally, participants can easily contribute photos and videos to a dedicated Shared Album within each invite to help preserve memories and relive the event.”
This sounds like a great feature. Post event photo sharing is always a bit of a mess.
This sounds like a great feature. Post event photo sharing is always a bit of a mess.
I have 2 conflicting feelings about this:
- I'm glad to see this, as it might be an easily accessible alternative to Facebook events, which I tend to miss as I'm checking my FB only once in a while
- on the other hand, each new Apple release adds apps that might kill some small start-ups that are offering similar services for the small fee. Having a free alternative on your phone out of the box with most of your contacts using will lead to a decent number of subscriptions' cancellations. A good lesson to build smth that is harder to reproduce, though...
- I'm glad to see this, as it might be an easily accessible alternative to Facebook events, which I tend to miss as I'm checking my FB only once in a while
- on the other hand, each new Apple release adds apps that might kill some small start-ups that are offering similar services for the small fee. Having a free alternative on your phone out of the box with most of your contacts using will lead to a decent number of subscriptions' cancellations. A good lesson to build smth that is harder to reproduce, though...
Not necessarily, I used to use Apple Reminders initially because it was free, i found the value of a good TODOs app by using it extensively.
Then once I loved using Todo apps, I migrated to Todoist and started paying for a Todo app.
Apple Reminders is the reason why I pay for Todoist app, it helped me learn it, same reason why I moved from free iMovies app to a paid video editing app.
Same reason why I moved from Free Apple Notes to Bear Notes + Muse App (both paid subscriptions)
In a way, provided other apps keep accelerating and moving ahead of apple, apple’s free apps kinda end up working as free trial sessions for showcasing the Utility of a good App.
Also, its a good thing apple ends up commoditizing free entry-level apps, there’s a billion software out there to build for different industries, its the only way, the prices of software will fall, which means more money in our pockets to spend on other things. So it’s fine, just as long as people don’t forget to innovate, that’s the way a free market should be.
What is anti-competitive tho, is stuff like Apple Music and Spotify, where spotify has to pay 30% cut to apple while apple music doesnt have to pay anything. But as long as apple is commoditizing entry-level apps, for other fast moving startups that can be a good thing, as they can show better value to customers who already have tried out free apple apps and see the value of those softwares.
I would have never paid for all those apps each month, were it not for apple’s free apps that helped me see the value in it.
Then once I loved using Todo apps, I migrated to Todoist and started paying for a Todo app.
Apple Reminders is the reason why I pay for Todoist app, it helped me learn it, same reason why I moved from free iMovies app to a paid video editing app.
Same reason why I moved from Free Apple Notes to Bear Notes + Muse App (both paid subscriptions)
In a way, provided other apps keep accelerating and moving ahead of apple, apple’s free apps kinda end up working as free trial sessions for showcasing the Utility of a good App.
Also, its a good thing apple ends up commoditizing free entry-level apps, there’s a billion software out there to build for different industries, its the only way, the prices of software will fall, which means more money in our pockets to spend on other things. So it’s fine, just as long as people don’t forget to innovate, that’s the way a free market should be.
What is anti-competitive tho, is stuff like Apple Music and Spotify, where spotify has to pay 30% cut to apple while apple music doesnt have to pay anything. But as long as apple is commoditizing entry-level apps, for other fast moving startups that can be a good thing, as they can show better value to customers who already have tried out free apple apps and see the value of those softwares.
I would have never paid for all those apps each month, were it not for apple’s free apps that helped me see the value in it.
That's a great way to view it, I haven't looked at it from this angle before, thanks.
> What is anti-competitive tho, is stuff like Apple Music and Spotify, where spotify has to pay 30% cut to apple while apple music doesnt have to pay anything.
Yeah, that's why the monopoly is rarely a good idea for the customers, in my opinion.
> What is anti-competitive tho, is stuff like Apple Music and Spotify, where spotify has to pay 30% cut to apple while apple music doesnt have to pay anything.
Yeah, that's why the monopoly is rarely a good idea for the customers, in my opinion.
To point 2: who cares? As a consumer I prefer (1) a team that will not run out of money and sell my data and (2) a free service built-in and well integrated, and (3) not yet another subscription to forget to cancel
I see your point.
There are a few objective moments, imho, that I'd consider, though:
> a team that will not run out of money and sell my data
While "not run out of money" is true, the "sell my data" part is not given. For example, in 2023 Google sold its domains business (https://domains.google/) to Squarespace. Also, while not directly selling your data, they might sell the outcomes of your data in a form of ads or AI models, for example. I believe that can objectively bother some people.
Another point: this is the way to build a monopoly, or a global dominance on the market, and then dictate the rules. I see that stories about some Big Tech monopoly controversial moves are often quite popular on HN, as those situations resonate with many tech enthusiasts.
As for the rest of the point, I agree with you, that a free, high-quality, and decent service is a benefit for us, consumers, over another subscription. I still feel sorry for small bootstrapped services. But that's my subjective feeling, I'm aware of that.
> a team that will not run out of money and sell my data
While "not run out of money" is true, the "sell my data" part is not given. For example, in 2023 Google sold its domains business (https://domains.google/) to Squarespace. Also, while not directly selling your data, they might sell the outcomes of your data in a form of ads or AI models, for example. I believe that can objectively bother some people.
Another point: this is the way to build a monopoly, or a global dominance on the market, and then dictate the rules. I see that stories about some Big Tech monopoly controversial moves are often quite popular on HN, as those situations resonate with many tech enthusiasts.
As for the rest of the point, I agree with you, that a free, high-quality, and decent service is a benefit for us, consumers, over another subscription. I still feel sorry for small bootstrapped services. But that's my subjective feeling, I'm aware of that.
Apple always sweats the details and I so respect it! Upon arriving at the kid's birthday party Android users get green balloons.
Green balloons, but they are deflated enough so that the #555555 (grey) balloons are clearly the superior experience. And then when people point out that the green balloons are intentionally hobbled, a voice tells them to just buy their mom an iphone if she wants a balloon that properly bounces.
I'd like some of what you are having.
Looks like an Apple version of Partiful?
Was about to say this. Though less useful, because Partiful doesn't require an app so can be used by anyone.
I wonder how much the network effect may be leveraged for apps like these, to the benefit or detriment of apps like Partiful in comparison with Invites.
I know Facebook's last useful feature appears to be events in many circles.
I wonder how much the network effect may be leveraged for apps like these, to the benefit or detriment of apps like Partiful in comparison with Invites.
I know Facebook's last useful feature appears to be events in many circles.
Apple Invites can be used on the web. https://www.icloud.com/invites/
WTF is this? How do they make money? They have picture of 10+ people as a "team", on their help page
https://help.partiful.com/hc/en-us/articles/26526557943067-H...
it just says "We offer party add-ons and merch on our online store!"
Their online store has like 2 tshirts, stickers, sun glasses and a bag?!
https://help.partiful.com/hc/en-us/articles/26526557943067-H...
it just says "We offer party add-ons and merch on our online store!"
Their online store has like 2 tshirts, stickers, sun glasses and a bag?!
It’s… unclear. Right now their stated business model is explicitly to burn VC cash: https://x.com/partiful/status/1620481353396658176
They probably don't make much money. Their wikipedia page says they got $20m series A funding.
VC for now, offer ticketing with a fee later.
That's actually an interesting plan! That totally might work
Exactly what it is.
[deleted]
I really hope this fails.
Apple will use it's dominant position to create lock in like how they did with iMessage instead of cooperating with other platforms on a common standard.
Oder friends and family are surprised when they want to video call over Facetime and find it hard to believe other people's phones don't have Apple apps.
Apple will use it's dominant position to create lock in like how they did with iMessage instead of cooperating with other platforms on a common standard.
Oder friends and family are surprised when they want to video call over Facetime and find it hard to believe other people's phones don't have Apple apps.
Just a tip but sometimes it’s good to read the article before commenting.
The app allows iPhone users to create an event. Anybody on any device or browser can RSVP. The event can be shared as a link. Making an event invite app that only works for users on one platform would be pointless.
Also - non-Apple users have been able to join FaceTime calls via. A link for several years.
The app allows iPhone users to create an event. Anybody on any device or browser can RSVP. The event can be shared as a link. Making an event invite app that only works for users on one platform would be pointless.
Also - non-Apple users have been able to join FaceTime calls via. A link for several years.
There is no indication they haven't read the article.
This product, much like iMessage and others, provides an inferior experience to non-Apple users. It aims to make other devices and operating systems look less capable and cheap.
iMessage also partially works with other phones. This doesn't change the fact that its intention is to create a lock-in effect, as evidenced by internal Apple emails.
This product, much like iMessage and others, provides an inferior experience to non-Apple users. It aims to make other devices and operating systems look less capable and cheap.
iMessage also partially works with other phones. This doesn't change the fact that its intention is to create a lock-in effect, as evidenced by internal Apple emails.
I would rather join an Apple Invite Group than a WhatsApp Group.
If they now make it possible to invite people in your radius they even get a share of dating apps.
If they now make it possible to invite people in your radius they even get a share of dating apps.
How about a Matrix group? https://matrix.org
I'm sure Matrix users are a great dating pool.
Indeed, they're likely more educated than the average.
Why is this a problem?
Typical HN downvoting because of “muh vendor lockin” without giving an answer as to why exactly this matters for the general population.
It is a fantastic business model.
Typical HN downvoting because of “muh vendor lockin” without giving an answer as to why exactly this matters for the general population.
It is a fantastic business model.
Because we want to interact with our friends and family without being forced to switch platforms. I don't care about Apple's business model.
So interact with them? This doesn’t stop you in any way.
This is a weird way to think about it. You are basically saying a company should not launch something exclusive to their platform or ecosystem, but rather should consider launch a generic product compatible with everything out there. Why would they ? How will they stand different if everyone does that ?
Exclusivity is a basic part of business model. Look at PS4 with exclusive titles. Hell, look at your local store with exclusive products only available in their stores.
I would have agreed with you if Apple had done this for a basic feature like calling. But this sure is a privileged feature and there is nothing wrong in making it exclusive to iPhone (but they haven't you see).
Exclusivity is a basic part of business model. Look at PS4 with exclusive titles. Hell, look at your local store with exclusive products only available in their stores.
I would have agreed with you if Apple had done this for a basic feature like calling. But this sure is a privileged feature and there is nothing wrong in making it exclusive to iPhone (but they haven't you see).
If you feel your ability to interact with your friends and family is threatened by some business launching a service, you should seriously question your friends and family and/or your and/or their social/communication skills.
Help, I followed your advice and alienated a bunch of people I need in my life. Will you support me now??
The self-entitlement is getting old. Nobody's forcing you to switch platforms. If your Apple-friends send you an invite, you will not be shunned from the event. Yes even the uncool non-Apple users will be allowed to participate in said invite.
Got to love the HN bubble. Anti anti apple is immediate downvote even with a sensible argument like yourself…
How so? It just sends a link either in a message or email. Acceptance is done via a web page. How do online invitations ensure vendor lock in? What will prevent me from using another online invite system in the future? I’ve used a bunch in past like evite, paperless post and the cost to switch is nothing.
Two of the features of Invites are sharing photos and sharing music. These are both locked down to users of Apple services (Photos and Music). So you can invite anyone, but those people won't be able to fully participate in your event.
There's nothing really wrong with Invites if you're happy to only have photos from people with iPhones or to let the music be exclusively chosen by Apple users, but you can't pretend it's a fair and equal system.
There's nothing really wrong with Invites if you're happy to only have photos from people with iPhones or to let the music be exclusively chosen by Apple users, but you can't pretend it's a fair and equal system.
Depends on how you define locked down. Apple Music has been available on the Google Play store for years [1] and also supports listening in a web browser on any operating system [2]. I do agree Photos could use some cross-platform improvements.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.andr...
[2] https://support.apple.com/guide/music-web/welcome/web
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.andr...
[2] https://support.apple.com/guide/music-web/welcome/web
It is a degraded experience. Not as smooth as being on iOS. It’s a common playbook used by Apple (as well as MS and others) in an attempt to get and retain users.
Why would the stewards of a walled garden want other gardens (walled or otherwise) be as good as theirs? What moral or economic imperative exists for such a belief?
Why is that bad?
Why is that bad?
> Why would the stewards of a walled garden want other gardens (walled or otherwise) be as good as theirs? What moral (...) imperative exists for such a belief?
Not being an asshole? It's normal instinct unless one's brain has been thoroughly eaten by competitiveness.
> Why is that bad?
Because in this, Apple is attacking the commons. They're trying to provide an alternative to normal invite system - one that's been established and battle-tested over decades, one that works okay-ish across any device, real or virtual, on any platform, and one that people know how to use. An alternative that gives some bells and whistles exclusively to the Apple users, and perhaps even is more ergonomic in practice. An alternative that overlaps with the commons just enough to perhaps get the significant chunk of Apple-first userbase to switch over, but purposefully doesn't overlap enough to work well for non-Apple users (as well as professional users).
Take commons, drive a wedge down the side, use it as lever for your massive userbase to push everyone else off it. Screw everyone else. Hell, even screw your own users too for having Android users (or Windows or Linux desktop users!) among family and friends. The next generation of users should remember that thou shalt only befriend and marry people from within your corporate community.
Not being an asshole? It's normal instinct unless one's brain has been thoroughly eaten by competitiveness.
> Why is that bad?
Because in this, Apple is attacking the commons. They're trying to provide an alternative to normal invite system - one that's been established and battle-tested over decades, one that works okay-ish across any device, real or virtual, on any platform, and one that people know how to use. An alternative that gives some bells and whistles exclusively to the Apple users, and perhaps even is more ergonomic in practice. An alternative that overlaps with the commons just enough to perhaps get the significant chunk of Apple-first userbase to switch over, but purposefully doesn't overlap enough to work well for non-Apple users (as well as professional users).
Take commons, drive a wedge down the side, use it as lever for your massive userbase to push everyone else off it. Screw everyone else. Hell, even screw your own users too for having Android users (or Windows or Linux desktop users!) among family and friends. The next generation of users should remember that thou shalt only befriend and marry people from within your corporate community.
>They're trying to provide an alternative to normal invite system - one that's been established and battle-tested over decades, one that works okay-ish across any device, real or virtual, on any platform, and one that people know how to use.
And if the people who try Invites discover that it isn't, in fact, superior to this "normal invite system"—whatever you believe it to be—that you claim is "established and battle-tested," they won't continue using it and will go back to what they were doing before.
>An alternative that gives some bells and whistles exclusively to the Apple users, and perhaps even is more ergonomic in practice.
Do you believe that all vendors should be forbidden from shipping any new application or feature that doesn't offer full interoperability and feature parity with everybody else or is that a limitation you believe should be applied only to Apple?
And if the people who try Invites discover that it isn't, in fact, superior to this "normal invite system"—whatever you believe it to be—that you claim is "established and battle-tested," they won't continue using it and will go back to what they were doing before.
>An alternative that gives some bells and whistles exclusively to the Apple users, and perhaps even is more ergonomic in practice.
Do you believe that all vendors should be forbidden from shipping any new application or feature that doesn't offer full interoperability and feature parity with everybody else or is that a limitation you believe should be applied only to Apple?
"With Apple Invites, users can create and easily share invitations, RSVP, contribute to Shared Albums, and engage with Apple Music playlists."
Correct me if I'm wrong:
- create & share invitations: must have iCloud+
- iCloud shared albums: barebones upload/download on non-Apple devices
- apple music: cross-platform, must be subscribed
- RSVP: cross-platform (Apple account req'd)
So yes, it "works" outside the Apple ecosystem, but missing features to encourage lock-in.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
- create & share invitations: must have iCloud+
- iCloud shared albums: barebones upload/download on non-Apple devices
- apple music: cross-platform, must be subscribed
- RSVP: cross-platform (Apple account req'd)
So yes, it "works" outside the Apple ecosystem, but missing features to encourage lock-in.
The only problem I have with this, as an android user, is that there's probably no API available for someone to build an integration for other platforms if the market was there. I don't expect Apple to go and create cross platform clients for every service they put out, they're not a service first company, they're an Apple service first company.
That's a big problem though. They're targeting a class of use cases currently covered by iCalendar family of open protocols[0] and handled by every calendar and e-mail app there is. Because of their narrowed focus on features most relevant to individuals, families and groups of friends, they'll be able to deliver a superior experience there for people on their platform - and they have both enough users and the correct placement in the "tech stack" (unlike e.g. Facebook/Meta or other social platforms, that already tried and failed to pull it off) to break universality of iCal for everyone else.
If this sticks, it won't only screw you or me over as Android users with Apple users in our friends groups. This will quickly bubble up from friend gatherings to community groups and local services businesses. At some point, you'll find that your kids' kindergarten or your stylist or even your doctor starts sending you Apple Invites instead of e-mail invites (.ics), because the Apple variant also comes with a shared photo album. It's actually surprising when you notice just how many appointments could use a shared photo and/or document collection directly linked to them - that part is actually a good idea from Apple. It's just sad that they're weaponizing it instead of improving what already works for everyone.
--
[0] - https://icalendar.org/RFC-Specifications/all/
If this sticks, it won't only screw you or me over as Android users with Apple users in our friends groups. This will quickly bubble up from friend gatherings to community groups and local services businesses. At some point, you'll find that your kids' kindergarten or your stylist or even your doctor starts sending you Apple Invites instead of e-mail invites (.ics), because the Apple variant also comes with a shared photo album. It's actually surprising when you notice just how many appointments could use a shared photo and/or document collection directly linked to them - that part is actually a good idea from Apple. It's just sad that they're weaponizing it instead of improving what already works for everyone.
--
[0] - https://icalendar.org/RFC-Specifications/all/
I can't say I've ever received an event invitation via iCalendar. Getting an .ics download for an event to put it on my calendar, sure, but that's not an invite, it's just a read-only event.
Yeah I think this is targeting Facebook Events (which they seem like they've been trying to kill off anyway) and Partiful more than calendar meetings/appointments.
Do you have a personal stylist or doctor that sends you direct calendar invites?
Usually a friend just DMs me and tells me to show up somewhere.
Usually a friend just DMs me and tells me to show up somewhere.
Pull requests welcome.
Can you direct me to where I can make pull requests to unlock Apple's walled garden?
[Citation needed]
It literally says, “...anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.”
Anyone can RSVP, but only Apple users can fully partake in it.
Also, per sgt's comment below, it seems it works the same way as sharing documents via OneDrive. "Share with anyone, doesn't require sign-in". That is the actual text from the Share dialog in Windows 11. "Doesn't require sign-in". Well, except if you're sharing more than one document under a link - then it forces recipients to sign in with an account. It's even documented in the on-line help for the feature, just not mentioned in the UI. Also, when you share a single document, while sign-in truly isn't required, the link still leads to a login page that urges signing in or creating an account, and just has this tiny, barely noticeable link to access without login, tucked in the corner somewhere.
(I miss Dropbox's "Public" folder from a decade ago. That was the first and last time sharing documents from web drives made sense.)
Also, per sgt's comment below, it seems it works the same way as sharing documents via OneDrive. "Share with anyone, doesn't require sign-in". That is the actual text from the Share dialog in Windows 11. "Doesn't require sign-in". Well, except if you're sharing more than one document under a link - then it forces recipients to sign in with an account. It's even documented in the on-line help for the feature, just not mentioned in the UI. Also, when you share a single document, while sign-in truly isn't required, the link still leads to a login page that urges signing in or creating an account, and just has this tiny, barely noticeable link to access without login, tucked in the corner somewhere.
(I miss Dropbox's "Public" folder from a decade ago. That was the first and last time sharing documents from web drives made sense.)
[ignore, I've misread] ~~In that case, you must have iCloud+ subscription~~
I tried this and RSVP'd with an email that didn't have an Apple account, and it asked me to created an Apple account.
I originally created the event using my own Apple account which definitely has iCloud+. So how do I create an event that someone without an Apple account can RSVP to?
I originally created the event using my own Apple account which definitely has iCloud+. So how do I create an event that someone without an Apple account can RSVP to?
I don't know - I was able share a link and RSVP without an account. AFAIK I enabled every option other than the shared album.
It does prefer contacting via email, so it did an email verification via mailed PIN, and then attached that email to the guest list from the link.
It does prefer contacting via email, so it did an email verification via mailed PIN, and then attached that email to the guest list from the link.
Sometimes it's also good to stop worshiping trillion dollar companies who abuse their market dominance.
While tech-literate Apple users couldn't tell the difference, their images and videos were sent in potato quality to non-Apple devices. So while technically, they could communicate with non-Apple users, it was a bad experience for anyone not in "walled garden".
p.s Not taking features put out by Apple at face-value doesn't mean I didn't read the article.
While tech-literate Apple users couldn't tell the difference, their images and videos were sent in potato quality to non-Apple devices. So while technically, they could communicate with non-Apple users, it was a bad experience for anyone not in "walled garden".
p.s Not taking features put out by Apple at face-value doesn't mean I didn't read the article.
Yet, there's nothing iPhone specific about this idea. They didn't have to limit it in the way they did. In the future they can change the approach too and both remove and restrict features, because they will always go iPhone-first. Being able to use this in a restricted way today is just that. I share the "apple (and any corp)-first solution should fail" hope.
In the future they can change the approach too and
both remove and restrict features
Example: If you are heavily invested in Apple Music or Spotify, there's a lot of momentum there to keep you from switching. All your stuff is there (songs, favorites, playlists) and it would take a lot of time to re-find it on the other service, if it even exists there.
And streaming services like Netflix lock you in with constant reams of new content.
But what would be keeping me on some particular invite service? If I used Apple Invites for my last party two months ago... but I have decided that Apple Invites sucks now... I really don't see a lot of friction keeping me from switching away? The inconvenience would not be zero but seems minor.
You can switch. But now you also need to convince a random person that they should switch, because you can't easily use what they're using. And you may be the only one out of 10 people in the group complaining about it. Instead of their technical problem, Apple can make it a "you" social problem.
But now you also need to convince a random person that they should switch,
From https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/introducing-apple-inv... --
"Guests can view and respond to an invitation using the
new iPhone app or on the web without needing an iCloud+
subscription or an Apple Account."
So I do not follow when you claim that I would need to convince all my friends to "switch." Can you elaborate?
Still valid for:
What are you proposing instead? That these should all be decentralised/federated? SMS/RCS? Matrix? email? ICS?
s/Apple Invites/Meta Messenger groups/
s/Apple Invites/Facebook events/
s/Apple Invites/WhatsApp groups/
s/Apple Invites/Telegram groups
s/Apple Invites/doodle.com/
What are you proposing instead? That these should all be decentralised/federated? SMS/RCS? Matrix? email? ICS?
Ideally, yes, distributed. But otherwise almost every calendar service allows events with invited people. Even if each of those services is closed itself, they're all expected to work with any email client and browser. And then you... email messages.
The difference is that all of them work cross devices. That's why I only get video calls with WhatsApp and I never get one using one of the many video call apps of Google. I learned today, by reading this thread, that somebody could have sent me a link to a Facetime call. I never got one. Everybody in my country use WhatsApp for video calls (maybe somebody is videocalling with Facebook Messenger or Facetime, very few with Telegram) and nobody has to worry about which mobile OS the other person have. WhatsApp has commoditized both iPhones and Androids here. When people choose to buy a phone they don't think about how they'll make calls or send messages. They install WhatsApp, because they have to or they won't call and message a lot of people, and the problem is solved.
Edit: by the way, probably every single phone has builtin interoperable 1 to 1 video calls from the days of 3G. I remember testing them in late 2002 / early 2003. They worked and probably still work unless they retired the standard because everybody is using apps.
Edit: by the way, probably every single phone has builtin interoperable 1 to 1 video calls from the days of 3G. I remember testing them in late 2002 / early 2003. They worked and probably still work unless they retired the standard because everybody is using apps.
You (like quite a few others) didn't read the linked press release which would have been a good prerequisite for joining this conversation. I guess you really just wanted to unload on your least favorite tech company.
I did read the press release, and this seems pretty open.
From https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/introducing-apple-inv...
Your buddy can invite you to a party using this thing and you can RSVP without installing an app or creating an account. That sounds pretty good to me. You have a web browser, right?
I did read the press release, and this seems pretty open.
From https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/introducing-apple-inv...
"Guests can view and respond to an invitation using the
new iPhone app or on the web without needing an iCloud+
subscription or an Apple Account."
Your buddy can invite you to a party using this thing and you can RSVP without installing an app or creating an account. That sounds pretty good to me. You have a web browser, right?
ICS, yes. Like most event services that aren't Meta work with.
ICS + e-mail is the established standard. It works, and has worked for decades, to the point people don't think about it in terms other than just "calendar invites".
ICS + e-mail is the established standard. It works, and has worked for decades, to the point people don't think about it in terms other than just "calendar invites".
None of those require buying hundreds of dollars worth of hardware
[deleted]
The other side only sees a link. They don't even care which service that link originates from, they just press yes and that's it.
With all due respect, seeing anything more malicious is just extending your own emotions against apple to the topic.
With all due respect, seeing anything more malicious is just extending your own emotions against apple to the topic.
> They don't even care which service that link originates from, they just press yes and that's it.
There's a reason Apple integrates shared photo albums with Invites. It's actually something useful to be linked with an invite in almost all non-corporate use cases. And I bet you this feature will remain broken for non-Apple users.
There's a reason Apple integrates shared photo albums with Invites. It's actually something useful to be linked with an invite in almost all non-corporate use cases. And I bet you this feature will remain broken for non-Apple users.
Yes, but. Most of the invited folks might have an AppleID associated with their email, that they have not used for years. And invite will ask to enter the password if you have an AppleID associated.
The tussle between usability and security.
Yes, but. I was hoping to express my displeasure with Apple.
This is a made up problem with a trivial solution.
Tbf imessage also allows people to message non iOS users but apparently the ‘color of the bubble’ has been a big thing in the U.S. among youth.
> but apparently the ‘color of the bubble’ has been a big thing in the U.S. among youth
It's not the color itself that's the problem, it's that having one green user means the entire conversation falls back to SMS and thus photos, videos, etc are all degraded and you can't do more rich messaging things like reactions. This is changing with RCS but it is in Apple's interest to make it a social change rather than just a technological limitation.
It's not the color itself that's the problem, it's that having one green user means the entire conversation falls back to SMS and thus photos, videos, etc are all degraded and you can't do more rich messaging things like reactions. This is changing with RCS but it is in Apple's interest to make it a social change rather than just a technological limitation.
> the entire conversation falls back to SMS
> it is in Apple's interest to make it a social change rather than just a technological limitation.
It is a technical requirement? How would non-iMessage users respond to the whole group including the ones on iMessage?
When you sit for 5min and think about the whole flow across a bunch of message exchanges every other way there's really no other technical solution than downgrading the whole conversation to SMS/RCS.
> it is in Apple's interest to make it a social change rather than just a technological limitation.
It is a technical requirement? How would non-iMessage users respond to the whole group including the ones on iMessage?
When you sit for 5min and think about the whole flow across a bunch of message exchanges every other way there's really no other technical solution than downgrading the whole conversation to SMS/RCS.
The solution is the same one used by every other messaging app: allow iMessage on Android. There is no technical thing stopping them. Instead they actively take measures to prevent it from working.
So your solution is to reject people from participating in a group chat until they install an Apple product on their Android phone?
That's better than the current option.
If people want to group SMS they should open their phone's SMS app. If people want to group iMessage they should all open iMessage. If people want to chat on signal, they should all open signal.
Unfortunately, iMessage is bizarrely both iOS's SMS app and a custom signal-like chat protocol, but the user can't pick between the protocols easily and it switches between them in an opaque way.
It's just a bizarrely bad UX by a company that supposedly is good at UX, and the only purpose it seems to serve is to provide this broken green-bubble experience.
I'd much rather if iOS just had "iMessage" as an app without SMS, had "SMS" as an app for only SMS/MMS/RCS, and then allowed android users to make an apple account and install iMessage (possible with an optional 1-time fee to prevent spam, like having to buy a $700 iPhone and throw it away as a sorta "proof of work" in order to make a iMessage-for-android account. This isn't too different from how some of my friends do this now, with a mac mini in their closet for iMessage which they remote desktop into if they want to chat to iPhone using friends, and use for nothing else).
If people want to group SMS they should open their phone's SMS app. If people want to group iMessage they should all open iMessage. If people want to chat on signal, they should all open signal.
Unfortunately, iMessage is bizarrely both iOS's SMS app and a custom signal-like chat protocol, but the user can't pick between the protocols easily and it switches between them in an opaque way.
It's just a bizarrely bad UX by a company that supposedly is good at UX, and the only purpose it seems to serve is to provide this broken green-bubble experience.
I'd much rather if iOS just had "iMessage" as an app without SMS, had "SMS" as an app for only SMS/MMS/RCS, and then allowed android users to make an apple account and install iMessage (possible with an optional 1-time fee to prevent spam, like having to buy a $700 iPhone and throw it away as a sorta "proof of work" in order to make a iMessage-for-android account. This isn't too different from how some of my friends do this now, with a mac mini in their closet for iMessage which they remote desktop into if they want to chat to iPhone using friends, and use for nothing else).
RCS is not a downgrade, it can also be E2E encrypted but Apple's implementation doesn't use it. It is entirely a business decision to not support the full capabilities of RCS as the iMessage sender system.
The only implementation of E2E RCS is Google's Jibe, which is a proprietary, non-standard version. There is no mention of encryption in the spec other than to say that it's up to carriers to determine. Apple, in contrast to Google's proprietary approach, has offered to work with carriers and the GSMA to define a common set of standards for encryption.
I never said it wasn't proprietary, just that Apple doesn't use it currently. It's fine to offer to work with carriers, but for people right now, it's non-viable to use RCS with iMessage.
While there is no public documentation on Google's approach that I know of, there is also nothing to make me think Apple _can_ currently use it.
There is no authoritative mapping from an account to a single service (e.g. my email address as an Apple account vs a Google accounts vs a WhatsApp account), which also means that if all three of these services say they have an account for me and advertise a public key, there is no way to know that account or public key are authoritative. Google's implementation requires you to use both their client and their hosted service, meaning it almost certainly assumes that all E2E keys can be resolved authoritatively from a single source (Google's table).
You instead need a way to look up accounts in a secure and auditable way across multiple authoritative services, like the IETF Key Transparency work (that isn't complete yet).
It is also important to realize that Apple's support for alternative messaging systems besides iMessage is to meet carrier requirements, not user requirements. Apple's slow uptake on RCS AFAIK was because carriers themselves didn't care, until governments began to regulate it needed to be supported on handsets. The carrier RCS support almost universally is because Google wanted it for Android, which is also why Google's RCS hosted service is by far the most deployed by carriers.
The GSMA needs to define those carrier requirements for E2E RCS, and Apple has stated publicly they are working with them on that.
There is no authoritative mapping from an account to a single service (e.g. my email address as an Apple account vs a Google accounts vs a WhatsApp account), which also means that if all three of these services say they have an account for me and advertise a public key, there is no way to know that account or public key are authoritative. Google's implementation requires you to use both their client and their hosted service, meaning it almost certainly assumes that all E2E keys can be resolved authoritatively from a single source (Google's table).
You instead need a way to look up accounts in a secure and auditable way across multiple authoritative services, like the IETF Key Transparency work (that isn't complete yet).
It is also important to realize that Apple's support for alternative messaging systems besides iMessage is to meet carrier requirements, not user requirements. Apple's slow uptake on RCS AFAIK was because carriers themselves didn't care, until governments began to regulate it needed to be supported on handsets. The carrier RCS support almost universally is because Google wanted it for Android, which is also why Google's RCS hosted service is by far the most deployed by carriers.
The GSMA needs to define those carrier requirements for E2E RCS, and Apple has stated publicly they are working with them on that.
[deleted]
Children care. Children also often can't afford the cost of a new iPhone.
Adults don't really give a fuck as I can tell about it.
Adults don't really give a fuck about lots of what children care about.
Adults don't really give a fuck as I can tell about it.
Adults don't really give a fuck about lots of what children care about.
Teens generally care, some adults do care too.
If you care about the color of a chat bubble, you're kind of a child, no?
Like I said, it's not about the color but the features.
Im an adult and cant stand sms. It makes texting unowrkable.
I think calling it just "color of the bubble" downplays the intentional degredation of chat quality for everyone in the chat in order to encourage exclusion, presumably to create FOMO. Incidentally FOMO is a very powerful among youth, but it's still a thing for any group in some capacity.
Not that I personally cared, as i see it as an Apple flaw, but in joining a work iMessage group I had people whining about image quality and whatever other features were disabled between iMessage users while I was present.
Not that I personally cared, as i see it as an Apple flaw, but in joining a work iMessage group I had people whining about image quality and whatever other features were disabled between iMessage users while I was present.
Poor technical understanding. It's not "degradation."
They will use the iMessage protocol if supported by all clients. If not, they fall back to the next best thing supported by all clients whether RCS or SMS/MMS. In your case (possibly before iPhones supported RCS) the "next best thing" was apparently SMS/MMS.
This is the correct behavior.
I think you're also falling into the common trap of automatically thinking whatever Android supports is like, the correct and open standard.
In reality, RCS's history was an absolute mess of incompatible implementations, pushed and owned by some of by Apple's direct competitors. It's really not any more the "correct" standard than iMessage is and it does not support E2EE outside of Google's proprietary implementation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services#De...
They will use the iMessage protocol if supported by all clients. If not, they fall back to the next best thing supported by all clients whether RCS or SMS/MMS. In your case (possibly before iPhones supported RCS) the "next best thing" was apparently SMS/MMS.
This is the correct behavior.
I think you're also falling into the common trap of automatically thinking whatever Android supports is like, the correct and open standard.
In reality, RCS's history was an absolute mess of incompatible implementations, pushed and owned by some of by Apple's direct competitors. It's really not any more the "correct" standard than iMessage is and it does not support E2EE outside of Google's proprietary implementation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services#De...
At least RCS is an attempt at being a cross platform standard, even if it still sucks. iMessage is locked down to Apple devices only. Even if you reverse engineered the protocol you wouldn't be able to get it on Android because Apple will shut you down.
Best option is to just use a different app that just works on all platforms. No RCS, no iMessage.
Best option is to just use a different app that just works on all platforms. No RCS, no iMessage.
At least RCS is an attempt at being a cross platform
standard, even if it still sucks.
If not for that part I'd agree with you.
Best option is to just use a different app that just works
on all platforms. No RCS, no iMessage.
The value of iMessage/RCS/SMS is that it is effectively universal. I just need somebody's mobile number and I can call or text them. They are (more or less) guaranteed to be able to receive that call or text. I can buy the most advanced iPhone or Pixel and I can send a text message to some dude on a 2001 flip phone in a jungle somewhere. That is a huge huge huge value.
The value you are talking about is all because of SMS. It's the lowest common denominator and IMO shouldn't be combined into a single app.
And there's definitely no reason why either iMessage or RCS E2EE need to be locked to a specific platform. Signal, WhatsApp, etc just work everywhere with no quirks when messaging people on different platforms.
And there's definitely no reason why either iMessage or RCS E2EE need to be locked to a specific platform. Signal, WhatsApp, etc just work everywhere with no quirks when messaging people on different platforms.
All the other messenger apps you can use on iOS, like whatsapp, telegram, signal, etc, have no degradation with android users present.
Why can't apple publish an iMessage app for linux, windows, and android? Telegram and signal have no trouble maintaining applications for this, and they've got far less money than apple does.
RCS and SMS have been a total mess, yes, but every other chat protocol I've used has been better than iMessage in terms of supporting cross-platform communication. It's only iMessage which fails at this fundamental part of being a communication app, that of being available on multiple platforms.
I know you're going to say "the reason is spam, you need to pay apple $700 to get a device capable of iMessage, and they can ban by device, which deters spam"... which okay, fine, make iMessage be a $15/mo subscription to use on any non-iOS devices, that'd solve the spam problem just fine while still letting android users join back into the family group message chat again.
Why can't apple publish an iMessage app for linux, windows, and android? Telegram and signal have no trouble maintaining applications for this, and they've got far less money than apple does.
RCS and SMS have been a total mess, yes, but every other chat protocol I've used has been better than iMessage in terms of supporting cross-platform communication. It's only iMessage which fails at this fundamental part of being a communication app, that of being available on multiple platforms.
I know you're going to say "the reason is spam, you need to pay apple $700 to get a device capable of iMessage, and they can ban by device, which deters spam"... which okay, fine, make iMessage be a $15/mo subscription to use on any non-iOS devices, that'd solve the spam problem just fine while still letting android users join back into the family group message chat again.
> All the other messenger apps you can use on iOS, like whatsapp, telegram, signal, etc, have no degradation with android users present
Yes, those all work and each require that you download and install their app, go through setup, potentially some identity verification steps, etc.
If you want that functionality, all of them are available as options.
What would make an Apple iMessage app for Android better than any of them? Unlike today, Android users would have the same experience for any of these other apps - completely excluded from conversations until everyone agrees upon an app, downloads it, creates an account and exchanges whatever addresses, nicknames or QR codes necessary to join a group.
The only thing that an Apple iMessage app buys the group is a better experience for the _Apple_ users. It actually increases lock-in to Apple's services, both because now Android users are signing up for Apple services to to communicate with their groups, and because Apple users know they can just reject other options because the Android people can "make iMessage work".
Yes, those all work and each require that you download and install their app, go through setup, potentially some identity verification steps, etc.
If you want that functionality, all of them are available as options.
What would make an Apple iMessage app for Android better than any of them? Unlike today, Android users would have the same experience for any of these other apps - completely excluded from conversations until everyone agrees upon an app, downloads it, creates an account and exchanges whatever addresses, nicknames or QR codes necessary to join a group.
The only thing that an Apple iMessage app buys the group is a better experience for the _Apple_ users. It actually increases lock-in to Apple's services, both because now Android users are signing up for Apple services to to communicate with their groups, and because Apple users know they can just reject other options because the Android people can "make iMessage work".
I want Apple iMessage to be clearer on iOS.
Right now, iOS users can't as easily understand the difference between iMessage and SMS, and I think it would make what's happening clearer to users if the apps were separate.
If you opened the "SMS" app to get your sms 2fa codes and talk to android users, and your "iMessage" app separately to talk to iPhone users, it would make people less mad when they open their iMessage app to iMessage, and instead weirdly get green bubble SMS.
It would be like if when I installed the "firefox" app on iOS it instead installed "safari" and touching the "firefox" icon opened "safari", and didn't have any firefox addons. Oh weird, sorry, bad example.
The point is not that iMessage is better than whatsapp, it's not. The point is that iPhone users try to use iMessage, and right now apple's weird SMS integration with it makes them accidentally use SMS and get annoyed.
Right now, iOS users can't as easily understand the difference between iMessage and SMS, and I think it would make what's happening clearer to users if the apps were separate.
If you opened the "SMS" app to get your sms 2fa codes and talk to android users, and your "iMessage" app separately to talk to iPhone users, it would make people less mad when they open their iMessage app to iMessage, and instead weirdly get green bubble SMS.
It would be like if when I installed the "firefox" app on iOS it instead installed "safari" and touching the "firefox" icon opened "safari", and didn't have any firefox addons. Oh weird, sorry, bad example.
The point is not that iMessage is better than whatsapp, it's not. The point is that iPhone users try to use iMessage, and right now apple's weird SMS integration with it makes them accidentally use SMS and get annoyed.
The point is that iPhone users try to use
iMessage, and right now apple's weird SMS
integration with it makes them accidentally
use SMS and get annoyed.
Apple has made the correct set of trade offs. If you just want to send a text message and don't care about the particulars you can do that and you'll automagically get the best possible experience based on the best lowest common denominator protocol whether it is iMessage, RCS, or SMS.
And if you and your buddies are savvy enough to want more than that you can install Signal or Whatsapp or whatever.
But that baseline out-of-the-box experience for mobile phones has always been "if I have somebody's number I can text/call them using my phone's out-of-the-box functionality and the network sorts out the details."
I think it's kind of nuts to throw that in the trash and you don't appreciate what a huge step backwards that would be for most of the people who buy and use phones.
Also, would you not agree that out of the box E2EE is a huge deal!?
But the keys and key exchange protocol for E2EE have to be managed by somebody. Signal, Google, Apple, whoever.
Indeed. Pretty much everyone I know is "texting" with their friends and using whatever is the default app on their phone. Some people will use Whatsapp for specific groups/events, but that default text app is very commonly used.
This reminds me of a conversation with an iPhone-using elderly relative who wanted to text friends in their retirement home:
ER: Why is it that when I send text messages to my friends they sometimes never get them?
Me: When you get messages are the bubbles green?
ER: Yes.
Me: Is there bad phone signal in this area?
ER: Yes.
Me: OK, that means your friends are using Android phones, so your messages are being sent by a method called 'SMS' which isn't very reliable, particularly when phone signal is poor.
ER: I don't really understand that. What I can I do to fix it?
Me: You and your friends could install an app such as Whatsapp or Signal and send your texts with that.
ER: No, I'm not installing an app!
Me: You could persuade your friends to buy iPhones.
ER: They won't do that.
Me: You could wait a few months and Apple will most likely activate a new system called "RCS" on iPhones which might make messages with your friends a bit more reliable.
ER: That's no good, I need to fix it now.
etc. etc.
This reminds me of a conversation with an iPhone-using elderly relative who wanted to text friends in their retirement home:
ER: Why is it that when I send text messages to my friends they sometimes never get them?
Me: When you get messages are the bubbles green?
ER: Yes.
Me: Is there bad phone signal in this area?
ER: Yes.
Me: OK, that means your friends are using Android phones, so your messages are being sent by a method called 'SMS' which isn't very reliable, particularly when phone signal is poor.
ER: I don't really understand that. What I can I do to fix it?
Me: You and your friends could install an app such as Whatsapp or Signal and send your texts with that.
ER: No, I'm not installing an app!
Me: You could persuade your friends to buy iPhones.
ER: They won't do that.
Me: You could wait a few months and Apple will most likely activate a new system called "RCS" on iPhones which might make messages with your friends a bit more reliable.
ER: That's no good, I need to fix it now.
etc. etc.
being sent by a method called 'SMS' which isn't very reliable, particularly when phone signal is poor...
Not that it is relevant to overall point, but this is the exact opposite of my experience. I've been in plenty of situations where it is impossible to make calls because the signal is so bad, but communicating with SMS has worked perfectly. As my signal gets weaker and weaker, SMS is always the last thing to fail.
Not that it is relevant to overall point, but this is the exact opposite of my experience. I've been in plenty of situations where it is impossible to make calls because the signal is so bad, but communicating with SMS has worked perfectly. As my signal gets weaker and weaker, SMS is always the last thing to fail.
Interesting. I don't think I've noticed that, but I have run into various issues with SMS when there's poor signal.
On one occasion I could receive but could not send, just at the perfect time when someone was waiting for me and I was unable to get to them.
> They will use the iMessage protocol if supported by all clients.
Which would be perfectly reasonable if they allowed clients on other platforms. It just happens that the only clients are the ones that require buying Apple hardware. If the iMessage ptotocol is so great (I don't know enough about it to say), then great - either release an app for Android, or let others do it. Until then it's not a standard, open or otherwise.
Which would be perfectly reasonable if they allowed clients on other platforms. It just happens that the only clients are the ones that require buying Apple hardware. If the iMessage ptotocol is so great (I don't know enough about it to say), then great - either release an app for Android, or let others do it. Until then it's not a standard, open or otherwise.
If the iMessage ptotocol is so great (I don't know enough about it to say),
I would hope that anybody on HN considers that rather important.
Silicon Valley and engineers in general have really fucking changed if having a large portion of the phone-using population getting automagical E2EE is no longer a big deal.
Until then it's not a standard, open or otherwise.
E2EE is not exactly trivial to make "open" because somebody has got to manage the key exchange. This is true for Signal, etc.... Signal handles the key exchange.
I would have a problem with Apple's conduct here if they locked you out of alternatives.
But I think their approach is correct. You get a default E2EE experience that works between Apple devices. But you are not prevented from any other messaging network you might want to use.
In some ways this is admittedly like Microsoft enforcing their web monopoly by making Internet Explorer the default browser back in the day, but I think it is different in crucial ways and I think E2EE is a worthy and necessary goal.
> Well, it supports bigger images, read statuses, and fun effects that aren't a part of SMS. But what's important to a lot of people like me is that it's automatically E2EE if all recipients are on iMessage.
Yes, obviously it's better than SMS. That's a 40-year old standard. I don't think I've sent an SMS to a human in over a decade. I mean is it better than other modern messenger protocols.
> Are you holding Google to this same standard? RCS is open-ish, but the E2EE extensions are proprietary and the key exchange is managed by Google. They are not opening that up, or at least they have not said that they are.
My objection to iMessage isn't that it's proprietary. It's that it's closed, and restricted to one platform.
> But I think their approach is correct. You get a default E2EE experience that works between Apple devices. But you are not prevented from any other messaging network you might want to use.
There is no way to justify restricting it to Apple devices aside from vendor lock-in. They say they care about E2EE, but then make it impossible to work with conversations with most devices in the world.
Yes, obviously it's better than SMS. That's a 40-year old standard. I don't think I've sent an SMS to a human in over a decade. I mean is it better than other modern messenger protocols.
> Are you holding Google to this same standard? RCS is open-ish, but the E2EE extensions are proprietary and the key exchange is managed by Google. They are not opening that up, or at least they have not said that they are.
My objection to iMessage isn't that it's proprietary. It's that it's closed, and restricted to one platform.
> But I think their approach is correct. You get a default E2EE experience that works between Apple devices. But you are not prevented from any other messaging network you might want to use.
There is no way to justify restricting it to Apple devices aside from vendor lock-in. They say they care about E2EE, but then make it impossible to work with conversations with most devices in the world.
The last I looked into this, iMessage offers end to end encryption and RCS doesn't by default. Apple (rightfully, IMO) refuses to use Googles non open source end to end encryption extension that also would require key exchange on Google owned servers.
As opposed to apples non open source solution that requires device authentication on apple owned servers... I think none of them really care about interoperability here, or they would release something open and able to do e2ee instead of this dance. I mean signal protocol is right there and available to everyone.
This debate is dead, no amount of education can fix it. Any amount of logical discussion is a waste of time.
> RCS doesn't by default
That isn't exactly accurate. The standard doesn't have e2ee, but if you use google messages with RCS with other android phone it is end to end encrypted. But it uses a proprietary google extension to RCS. But I would be surprised if google wasn't willing to work with apple to get e2ee RCS working between iMessage and google Messages, but Apple has no interest in that.
That isn't exactly accurate. The standard doesn't have e2ee, but if you use google messages with RCS with other android phone it is end to end encrypted. But it uses a proprietary google extension to RCS. But I would be surprised if google wasn't willing to work with apple to get e2ee RCS working between iMessage and google Messages, but Apple has no interest in that.
Just so I understand: it's bad for Apple to have a proprietary E2EE solution, but it's good for Google to have one, and additionally it's Apple's fault for not using Google's?
Standardized interoperable E2EE > Proprietary E2EE > client-to-server encryption > no encryption
It isn't as simple as "apple bad, google good". Apple/iOS having E2EE is good. Apple refusing to cooperate at all in making E2EE interoperable with non apple products is bad. Google/Android having E2EE is good, and better than the claim above that RCS doesn't have E2EE by default. The fact that it is a proprietary extension is bad, but they seem more willing to interoperate. That said, if the positions were reversed, I suspect Google would also be more resistant to interoperability.
It isn't as simple as "apple bad, google good". Apple/iOS having E2EE is good. Apple refusing to cooperate at all in making E2EE interoperable with non apple products is bad. Google/Android having E2EE is good, and better than the claim above that RCS doesn't have E2EE by default. The fact that it is a proprietary extension is bad, but they seem more willing to interoperate. That said, if the positions were reversed, I suspect Google would also be more resistant to interoperability.
Standardized interoperable E2EE
You don't get to arbitrarily send messages to the device of somebody on the other side of the world unless a 3rd party is providing those services.
So, explain exactly who Google is collaborating with by offering support for Jibe exclusively for certified Android devices with Google Play Services and only available through their proprietary messaging app.
> That said, if the positions were reversed, I suspect Google would also be more resistant to interoperability.
With Apple adding support to iOS for RCS, the shoe is on the other foot.
> That said, if the positions were reversed, I suspect Google would also be more resistant to interoperability.
With Apple adding support to iOS for RCS, the shoe is on the other foot.
Google is not cooperating with anyone when it comes to their existing proprietary E2EE implementation. E2EE is available in Google's client only, able to be run on the Android devices Google certifies, when talking through Google's RCS server.
That is because the core of their security model is a centralized key server, outside of the rest of RCS, that acts as the source of truth for an account and its associated public keys.
That fails once you have accounts which are not being authoritatively managed by Google, e.g. an email address with multiple messaging services attached, or a phone number which may be managed by any number of third party RCS installations. That is a problem which is still being actively solved.
That is because the core of their security model is a centralized key server, outside of the rest of RCS, that acts as the source of truth for an account and its associated public keys.
That fails once you have accounts which are not being authoritatively managed by Google, e.g. an email address with multiple messaging services attached, or a phone number which may be managed by any number of third party RCS installations. That is a problem which is still being actively solved.
The color of the bubble is, at least partially, a security feature for me. When it’s blue, I am certain there is a person on the other end, not a bot, spammer, ai, etc…
Except it guarantees nothing of the sort.
Care to explain or provide any source for this?
Say more.
There are ways to send iMessages programmatically. Apple does check for spam, but it’s not foolproof. And of course, it won’t help you against a targeted attack.
I can count the total automated iMessage spams I've received on one hand. I can't do that with automated SMS spam I received in the last 24 hours.
So yes, not foolproof.
So yes, not foolproof.
How exactly does any of this prevent people from sending spam to you?
If there are ways, please share any documentation you have on it. I haven't found anything useful, myself.
I didn’t research it that much, but a good place to start would be AirMessage [1] or Mautrix [2]. Both of these require a Mac to work – it might work on a Hackintosh, though, or maybe using same tricks those forks of OpenHaystack use to run without a Mac (no pointers here, sorry). Hope this helps!
[1]: https://github.com/airmessage/airmessage-server
[2]: https://github.com/mautrix/imessage
[1]: https://github.com/airmessage/airmessage-server
[2]: https://github.com/mautrix/imessage
Thank you.
> Also - non-Apple users have been able to join FaceTime calls via. A link for several years.
Is the quality the same or even close? Is it easy and obvious how to share such links?
Is the quality the same or even close? Is it easy and obvious how to share such links?
> Is it easy and obvious how to share such links?
I barely ever FaceTime anyone. Just now after reading your comment I opened the FaceTime app. It has two big buttons:
- Create Link
- New FaceTime
And it showed a balloon tip under create link that said:
“Invite Anyone to a Call Friends with Android and Windows devices can join a FaceTime call if you share a link.”
So yes, seems they actually made it about as obvious as it can be. Maybe even more.
I barely ever FaceTime anyone. Just now after reading your comment I opened the FaceTime app. It has two big buttons:
- Create Link
- New FaceTime
And it showed a balloon tip under create link that said:
“Invite Anyone to a Call Friends with Android and Windows devices can join a FaceTime call if you share a link.”
So yes, seems they actually made it about as obvious as it can be. Maybe even more.
nothing quite like the perspective of someone from within the walled garden
It's the first button when you open FaceTime. Is that also too subjective?
the experience from the opposite side is the relevant part here. I recall the many years I was sent iMessages but unable to remove my phone number so that I could receive sms messages on my new android phone. The user experience from iOS phones sending me messages I would never receive was "great".
Over those many years you didn’t bother to google that you can just turn it off online? https://support.apple.com/en-ca/102455
It was extremely difficult to disable for a long time before it was made easy to turn it off on a website.
So aren’t you happy things got better?
Your "tips" don't really address the OP's post.
> Making an event invite app that only works for users on one platform would be pointless.
Worked really, really well for Facebook for about a decade or so.
> Also - non-Apple users have been able to join FaceTime calls via. A link for several years.
I had no idea! TIL!
Worked really, really well for Facebook for about a decade or so.
> Also - non-Apple users have been able to join FaceTime calls via. A link for several years.
I had no idea! TIL!
But isn’t that the same when people and schools create effing Facebook groups and events or whatever they are called and find it hard to believe that people don’t use that crap. Or create WhatsApp groups and communities and so on and on.
Yes, but at least those don't have hardware lock-in.
WhatsApp absolutely has hardware lock-in. You need to be an Apple or Google customer to use it, and you need at least one Android or iOS phone.
Wow. I assumed you could use Whatsapp on the web but you literally can't. You have to have an Android or Iphone. I guess maybe there's a way to fake it with emulators on your computer but that's a lot of work that you shouldn't need to have to do.
Well, it is tied to your phone number, idk if hardware lock in and vendor lock in are in the same camp exactly
You can use Whatsapp on the web, but you can't create an account on the web.
Worse they require frequent logins on device to keep the with client working. Just making the account on device isn't enough. You have to maintain it as well.
The requirement is not exactly "iOS or Android", the requirement is "SIM card with valid phone number". Otherwise, you could use it on iPads and Android tablets, which you normally can't.
WhatsApp accounts are directly tied to a single phone number, both for user discovery (that way, you can simply message everybody in your contacts who has the app - just the way user expect it to work) and for spam prevention.
Creating a smartphone messaging app without this feature would be orders of magnitude more difficult, you simply can't get normie users to go around "hey, what's your WhatsApp user name?"
WhatsApp accounts are directly tied to a single phone number, both for user discovery (that way, you can simply message everybody in your contacts who has the app - just the way user expect it to work) and for spam prevention.
Creating a smartphone messaging app without this feature would be orders of magnitude more difficult, you simply can't get normie users to go around "hey, what's your WhatsApp user name?"
None of my phones can run WhatsApp, even though they do have SIM cards. That's because none of them runs iOS or Android.
An Android emulator with Play Services should work in theory, but I haven’t tried it. They could have extra checks to prevent that.
You can install whatsapp on degoogled phones as well! No need of play services.
This.
I think there’s also an unofficial Python library, so you can write a simple script that keeps your account active (and use the web client).
I think there’s also an unofficial Python library, so you can write a simple script that keeps your account active (and use the web client).
Is it possible to install WhatsApp on one of the three major 3rd-party AOSP-based operating systems (distros): Graphene OS, Calyx OS, or Lineage OS?
Each one has varying models for replacing functionality of the Google Play Services, and IIRC the Aurora store [1] allows for installation of apps from Google Play without a Google account.
It's not a combination of steps that would be accessible to the average user, but I think it should be possible to use WhatsApp without being an Apple or Google customer (nominally a customer of Google hardware---Pixel phones---if using Graphene or Calyx, and ultimately a customer of Meta/Facebook for WhatsApp itself).
[1]: https://aurorastore.org/
Each one has varying models for replacing functionality of the Google Play Services, and IIRC the Aurora store [1] allows for installation of apps from Google Play without a Google account.
It's not a combination of steps that would be accessible to the average user, but I think it should be possible to use WhatsApp without being an Apple or Google customer (nominally a customer of Google hardware---Pixel phones---if using Graphene or Calyx, and ultimately a customer of Meta/Facebook for WhatsApp itself).
[1]: https://aurorastore.org/
It is. Works great without Google services (maybe pushes don’t work though, I can’t remember), or with microG.
> It's not a combination of steps that would be accessible to the average user
Tangential, but I’m thinking about starting a degoogled phone shop. Not sure if it’s a good business idea, but I think there is at least some demand there.
EDIT: aurorastore[.]org you link to is not the official site by the way. I’d not trust the APKs you get there. The official is https://auroraoss.com/ (and the downloads on F-Droid should be legit, too).
> It's not a combination of steps that would be accessible to the average user
Tangential, but I’m thinking about starting a degoogled phone shop. Not sure if it’s a good business idea, but I think there is at least some demand there.
EDIT: aurorastore[.]org you link to is not the official site by the way. I’d not trust the APKs you get there. The official is https://auroraoss.com/ (and the downloads on F-Droid should be legit, too).
> Tangential, but I’m thinking about starting a degoogled phone shop. Not sure if it’s a good business idea, but I think there is at least some demand there.
Sounds like an incredible amount of pain for very little gain.
* Even in my bubble (CS nerds, Linux only, FOSS developers, ect.), only around 20% run custom ROMs on their phones. The demand is tiny.
* Even the very best UX ROMs (GrapheneOS on a modern Pixel, with full Google Services re-installed in a sandbox) will drive normies crazy. Google Lens and Android Auto are non-trivial to get running. Google Pay/Wallet is straight up impossible. And again, this is on a re-googled de-googled phone. Can't imagine how bad it's with a truely de-googled phone.
* If you go back into the walled garden defeated, you lose almost everything you did outside it. The few things you don't lose, you will have to work hard for.
The few customers you would get would create a high number of support requests, and be very unhappy with whatever you could do for them. Everybody not needing your support already runs LinageOS/GrapheneOS successfully on their own.
Sounds like an incredible amount of pain for very little gain.
* Even in my bubble (CS nerds, Linux only, FOSS developers, ect.), only around 20% run custom ROMs on their phones. The demand is tiny.
* Even the very best UX ROMs (GrapheneOS on a modern Pixel, with full Google Services re-installed in a sandbox) will drive normies crazy. Google Lens and Android Auto are non-trivial to get running. Google Pay/Wallet is straight up impossible. And again, this is on a re-googled de-googled phone. Can't imagine how bad it's with a truely de-googled phone.
* If you go back into the walled garden defeated, you lose almost everything you did outside it. The few things you don't lose, you will have to work hard for.
The few customers you would get would create a high number of support requests, and be very unhappy with whatever you could do for them. Everybody not needing your support already runs LinageOS/GrapheneOS successfully on their own.
Yeah, probably not really worth it.
> Google Pay/Wallet is straight up impossible
FWIW, microG seems to have fixed Play Integrity (again), so Google Pay is not out of the question now. (It’s still very painful though, even on LineageOS with Google services without a sandbox I can’t get it working – though it seems that my device was flagged specifically, and in theory it should work with some hacks.)
And I think Google Lens should work out of the box :thinking:
> Google Pay/Wallet is straight up impossible
FWIW, microG seems to have fixed Play Integrity (again), so Google Pay is not out of the question now. (It’s still very painful though, even on LineageOS with Google services without a sandbox I can’t get it working – though it seems that my device was flagged specifically, and in theory it should work with some hacks.)
And I think Google Lens should work out of the box :thinking:
What's worse, and what people gloss over, is that you have to sync your contacts to Facebook/Meta in order to use WhatsApp. That's a lot of very private information that tells them a lot about you. There is a reason why Facebook paid bajillions for WhatsApp and maintains it, even though the communication is encrypted and there are no ads — it's not out of the goodness of their noble hearts.
But try telling this to anyone and watch their eyes glaze over in a matter of seconds.
But try telling this to anyone and watch their eyes glaze over in a matter of seconds.
You don't have to. At least on iOS I've managed to get away without doing it until now. WhatsApp does make it inconvenient to do stuff without syncing contacts though.
[deleted]
They have a desktop version of WhatsApp.
As far as I know, the desktop requires you to sign-in via QR code from a mobile phone that you're logged into whatsapp on.
Yeah, well, you need a computer to go on the internet! Where’s the freedom there!? /s
Your comment is missing the point.
Even if you do have a smartphone, you might be running some flavor of Linux on it. Or maybe Google terminated your account due to some false positive.
Even if you do have a smartphone, you might be running some flavor of Linux on it. Or maybe Google terminated your account due to some false positive.
You only need an iCloud+ account not an Apple device.
Thus there’s zero hardware lock-in, an Android user could send invites. Though obviously iCloud is more appealing if you’re part of there ecosystem, you can just use it for file storage etc.
Thus there’s zero hardware lock-in, an Android user could send invites. Though obviously iCloud is more appealing if you’re part of there ecosystem, you can just use it for file storage etc.
From the article, however, you don't technically need an apple device...an iCloud+ account is sufficient. That said, I don't know many people with iCloud+ who aren't already in the Apple ecosystem, and obviously anything Apple releases will obviously have some advantage to it if you use the hardware alone.
No one other than the organizer needs anything Apple.
[deleted]
Hard to believe? Where have you been? What other platform has billions of users that everyone should use instead?
It's the same. They are all walled gardens (whether hardware walled gardens or software walled gardens)
As much I deeply dislike Meta, it's not the same. I can simply open the Play store install facebook or Instagram. For the Apple walled garden, I need to spend $800+ USD
It feels like everyone's talking past each other in a big way on this thread. You don't need an Apple Device to participate in one of these events. At most you might need an iCloud account, which, (imo) is pretty much the same as Meta and crew.
Unrelated to that point, as other posters have called out, folks pretty consistently overstate the cost of Apple hardware relative to peers. You can spend $800 on a new iPhone 16, the latest release, or half that on an iPhone SE. Both of these options are available right now on Apple.com. This feels like saying you'd need to spend $1000+ on an Android because that's how much the newest Pixel costs.
Unrelated to that point, as other posters have called out, folks pretty consistently overstate the cost of Apple hardware relative to peers. You can spend $800 on a new iPhone 16, the latest release, or half that on an iPhone SE. Both of these options are available right now on Apple.com. This feels like saying you'd need to spend $1000+ on an Android because that's how much the newest Pixel costs.
You don't even need an app for Facebook or Instagram.
You don't even need an app for Invites.
[deleted]
<rant> or when you look for a FOSS project's documentation and it just says "Join our Discord!". Grrrrr. Nope.
sorry all of those things are way more acceptable than what apple does imo
Facebook you can access through any browser, on any hardware, and without having to pay for it. Not remotely comparable to Apple-only stuff. $1000 or whatever an iPhone costs these days is a lot of money for some people.
> $1000 or whatever an iPhone costs these days
Why do people always make up iPhone prices when the truth is readily available? You can buy a brand-new, unsubsidised iPhone for less than half that, and that’s not counting second-hand devices or phones on a contract, which are both incredibly common ways of getting a phone.
Why do people always make up iPhone prices when the truth is readily available? You can buy a brand-new, unsubsidised iPhone for less than half that, and that’s not counting second-hand devices or phones on a contract, which are both incredibly common ways of getting a phone.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
From the article…
Guests can view and respond to an invitation using the new iPhone app or on the web without needing an iCloud+ subscription or an Apple Account
Sounds like there’s no Apple walled garden lock-in for recipients of the Invites? Only for creating/managing them?
Sounds like there’s no Apple walled garden lock-in for recipients of the Invites? Only for creating/managing them?
But lots of features are likely to be unavailable to invitees (indeed the article specifically mentions a couple) without Apple devices. Apple loves to use network effects to make people with Android phones feel like outsiders.
It’s a calendar invite on a web page that links to a shared photo album viewable on the web along with a linked playlist… nothing locked down here
Yes. Exhibit A: the infamous green bubble stigma (US phenomenon only).
Also, Apple should not be in the business of making social apps. Hardware and OS is plenty lock-in aka fiefdoms as it is.
Also, Apple should not be in the business of making social apps. Hardware and OS is plenty lock-in aka fiefdoms as it is.
> Also, Apple should not be in the business of making social apps. Hardware and OS is plenty lock-in aka fiefdoms as it is.
I have some sympathy for Apple here; they are selling a premium walled garden, and nearly all popular social apps do one or more things that are rather antithetical to their brand.
I have some sympathy for Apple here; they are selling a premium walled garden, and nearly all popular social apps do one or more things that are rather antithetical to their brand.
The paranoia is real.
Apple has given me zero reason to trust it, and lots of reasons not to? I mean, it's a closed ecosystem. I'm not sure how this is arguable...
Just creating them. You have to have an iCloud+ subscription to be able to create them. Anyone can RSVP.
When I think of people I know who have iCloud+ subscriptions, it's mostly people who thought they needed them because of the scary notifications their phones sent them about running out of their initial 5GB of storage (which of course is not enough for any modern phone).
These are not people who are going to download and figure out how to use a new invite app. They are going to keep using evite just like they always have.
There are some people who may use iCloud+ or a bundle because they like the fitness features or have a family that makes it make sense. I probably know some people like this. But I have never had a conversation with anyone about iCloud+, ever in my life. Only dealt with questions from non-tech-savvy family members who were scared about notifications that they were running out of space and needed to "upgrade" to this paid service.
When I think of people I know who have iCloud+ subscriptions, it's mostly people who thought they needed them because of the scary notifications their phones sent them about running out of their initial 5GB of storage (which of course is not enough for any modern phone).
These are not people who are going to download and figure out how to use a new invite app. They are going to keep using evite just like they always have.
There are some people who may use iCloud+ or a bundle because they like the fitness features or have a family that makes it make sense. I probably know some people like this. But I have never had a conversation with anyone about iCloud+, ever in my life. Only dealt with questions from non-tech-savvy family members who were scared about notifications that they were running out of space and needed to "upgrade" to this paid service.
What about people who actually run out of space? Or want to backup their phones?
So your complaint is, "how dare they charge for a service they're offering"?
If you don't want to use it to create invitations, don't. There's zero requirement for you to have an account if others invite you to something, and it sounds kind of preposterous to complain about other people choosing to pay for a service that you can then participate with for free.
If you don't want to use it to create invitations, don't. There's zero requirement for you to have an account if others invite you to something, and it sounds kind of preposterous to complain about other people choosing to pay for a service that you can then participate with for free.
Where in my post did I say anything like "how dare they"? I just pointed out that the people I know who have iCloud+ are not likely to download this new app and use it.
And it's obviously not likely to get anyone over the pay wall to buy iCloud+. This invitation feature has many free competitors. I don't begrudge Apple for creating this, but I won't be surprised if I keep getting evites and paperless post invites, and never an Apple Invite or whatever it's called.
And it's obviously not likely to get anyone over the pay wall to buy iCloud+. This invitation feature has many free competitors. I don't begrudge Apple for creating this, but I won't be surprised if I keep getting evites and paperless post invites, and never an Apple Invite or whatever it's called.
I was actually pretty excited about this until so read it was iCloud+ only. I think it is maybe a long-term strategic mistake to lock this behind iCloud+ and also a bad omen for the direction Apple is going in. In the past this would have been a free app.
If Apple did not lock this behind iCloud+ I think it would have quickly become a standard for a lot of users and been another feather in Apple’s cap of why a user might want an iPhone. Maybe they could have added upsells like gift an Apple Card or something or made money through affiliate gift giving links or something.
If Apple did not lock this behind iCloud+ I think it would have quickly become a standard for a lot of users and been another feather in Apple’s cap of why a user might want an iPhone. Maybe they could have added upsells like gift an Apple Card or something or made money through affiliate gift giving links or something.
Before I saw it was iCloud+ only, I thought it was a sort-of clever way to get people even more locked into the ecosystem. I assumed that the shared photos would add to people's reliance on iCloud, and get some to upgrade to higher tiers to fit all their photos.
I was quite surprised to learn it wasn't free. I had heard about this "sherlocking" on Twitter but hadn't read the details. I can't think of a time when Apple Sherlocked something but didn't make it free. In fact, making it free is kind of part in parcel of Sherlocking, since that's what really kills the other business. Here, plenty of people will keep using the existing competitors because they don't want to have to pay for iCloud+.
I was quite surprised to learn it wasn't free. I had heard about this "sherlocking" on Twitter but hadn't read the details. I can't think of a time when Apple Sherlocked something but didn't make it free. In fact, making it free is kind of part in parcel of Sherlocking, since that's what really kills the other business. Here, plenty of people will keep using the existing competitors because they don't want to have to pay for iCloud+.
I think they may have locked it behind iCloud+ because one of the big features it offers is a shared photo album, which of course utilizes iCloud. Anyone without iCloud+ is essentially going to be unable to use that feature. And yeah...it also pushes people into paying for iCloud+, though you can get on the $1/mo plan in order to access this, so it's not like it's very expensive.
You get 5GB of iCloud storage for free. I figured this was a way to get people closer to/over the limit.
I get that the iCloud tiers start cheap, but having 50GB doesn't really do anything for me since it's still not big enough to back up an iPhone. And there's zero chance I'm going to start paying for a monthly service in order to get access to an evite clone that I would use a couple times a year. Maybe there are big partiers out there that would upgrade just for this, but this seems like an impending flop to me.
I get that the iCloud tiers start cheap, but having 50GB doesn't really do anything for me since it's still not big enough to back up an iPhone. And there's zero chance I'm going to start paying for a monthly service in order to get access to an evite clone that I would use a couple times a year. Maybe there are big partiers out there that would upgrade just for this, but this seems like an impending flop to me.
I assume one could start and then cancel a subscription, though, so you could just pay about a buck every time you want to use the app. That’s a lot of friction, though.
I have iCloud+ base tier, but I use it just for iMessage, Drive, and other non-photo apps (I back up my photos to my NAS). I don’t back up my whole phone because all the data I care about is already backed up. I also like being able to use Private Relay when I want. All that is to say that for me the $1 plan is great and I still have plenty of space for shared album photos from events (which I later will move off of iCloud). But I get that I’m a pretty unusual use case.
I have iCloud+ base tier, but I use it just for iMessage, Drive, and other non-photo apps (I back up my photos to my NAS). I don’t back up my whole phone because all the data I care about is already backed up. I also like being able to use Private Relay when I want. All that is to say that for me the $1 plan is great and I still have plenty of space for shared album photos from events (which I later will move off of iCloud). But I get that I’m a pretty unusual use case.
I think they needed a new app / feature to make iCloud+ a more compelling reason for some?
Blame the telcos for the relative poor quality of text message multimedia (via MMS).
The telcos specify the size limits of MMS messages. iMessage has much higher limits in most cases, so iPhone has to use reduce the quality of the pics/videos to reach the lower size limits for sending to non-iMessage recipients.
For the telcos, why would they upgrade their size limits for MMS - it's just a cost centre for them. They probably make more by selling more iPhones as well.
The telcos specify the size limits of MMS messages. iMessage has much higher limits in most cases, so iPhone has to use reduce the quality of the pics/videos to reach the lower size limits for sending to non-iMessage recipients.
For the telcos, why would they upgrade their size limits for MMS - it's just a cost centre for them. They probably make more by selling more iPhones as well.
I'm an Apple guy and I have to disagree, it's not the Telco's.
Android implemented RCS and Apple dragged their feet in implementing the standardised platform such that high quality messaging was seamless and agnostic between brands
The iPhone needed to reduce the quality of pics/videos to non-iMessage recipients because Apple didn't support any other form of non-iMessage messaging.
Android implemented RCS and Apple dragged their feet in implementing the standardised platform such that high quality messaging was seamless and agnostic between brands
The iPhone needed to reduce the quality of pics/videos to non-iMessage recipients because Apple didn't support any other form of non-iMessage messaging.
RCS is not really an open standard though. If you want encrypted RCS with android phones, you can't unless Google lets you. At least that was true last I checked. I'm guessing it hasn't changed.
Are you saying if Apple asked Google to sit down and come up with an encrypted RCS working group and get proper interop done, it would be _Google_ that would decline?
Google was already asked and they said no. They want to keep their non-standard RCS, both server-side and client-side and will not share it.
Or more specifically: it's a different product ("Google Messages") that just happens to be based on RCS.
They do have some partnerships with hardware manufacturers that ship Play on their devices, and they will preload Google Messages in there as well.
In essence, it doesn't exist in AOSP, and doesn't really live side-by-side with a normal messaging app (i.e. one that only does baseband native messaging), I wouldn't be surprised if the partnerships and preloading conditions state the manufacturer can't ship their own version (I think at least Samsung had to drop their own "Samsung Messages" app as reported in one of the reviews of a foldable display phone).
In a way, RCS made no difference, and whatever Google did was mostly just to compete with Meta (both FB Messenger and WhatsApp). Fun fact: Google Messages is closer to Matrix than it is to iMessage in terms of comparable technical features.
Or more specifically: it's a different product ("Google Messages") that just happens to be based on RCS.
They do have some partnerships with hardware manufacturers that ship Play on their devices, and they will preload Google Messages in there as well.
In essence, it doesn't exist in AOSP, and doesn't really live side-by-side with a normal messaging app (i.e. one that only does baseband native messaging), I wouldn't be surprised if the partnerships and preloading conditions state the manufacturer can't ship their own version (I think at least Samsung had to drop their own "Samsung Messages" app as reported in one of the reviews of a foldable display phone).
In a way, RCS made no difference, and whatever Google did was mostly just to compete with Meta (both FB Messenger and WhatsApp). Fun fact: Google Messages is closer to Matrix than it is to iMessage in terms of comparable technical features.
Why would Google say yes?
To have easy compatibility with other devices. Why wouldn't they say yes?
That's not something they care about, as if they did, they would have already opened it.
It’s not as if SMS is e2e encrypted right? Is RCS worse in that dimension in some way?
who are you trying to convince? nobody in the know thinks this is a google problem, the facts are pretty obvious
Google totally controls that ability. Apple is not any better here, but it's weird to call out Apple as being the only meanie here, when both Apple and Google are equally terrible when it comes to cross-platform e2e messaging.
Thankfully we have Signal, which solves the problem better than either platform option.
Thankfully we have Signal, which solves the problem better than either platform option.
Not to say Signal is worse than either option, because it's not, but they really hampered adoption by removing SMS (at least in NA).
I have almost no way to convince anyone other than people very close to me to use it due to the (lack) of network effect. If they could just use it instead of the default messenger then it's a dramatically easier sell.
Obviously it's up to the Signal Foundation about the direction they take but I don't know if I've seen anyone agree with the justifications.
Google and Apple wrap up their locked down BS with SMS for the same reason. It's by default free of network effect but passively pulls people in.
I have almost no way to convince anyone other than people very close to me to use it due to the (lack) of network effect. If they could just use it instead of the default messenger then it's a dramatically easier sell.
Obviously it's up to the Signal Foundation about the direction they take but I don't know if I've seen anyone agree with the justifications.
Google and Apple wrap up their locked down BS with SMS for the same reason. It's by default free of network effect but passively pulls people in.
iPhone, for non-iMessage recipients, was limited by MMS limits.
Who sets the MMS limits? the telcos - actually min(both ends), the iPhone sender's telco and the recipient's telco.
iMessage was introduced in 2011. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMessage
Google announced RCS support for Google Messages in 2019. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
Who sets the MMS limits? the telcos - actually min(both ends), the iPhone sender's telco and the recipient's telco.
iMessage was introduced in 2011. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMessage
Google announced RCS support for Google Messages in 2019. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
"In June 2019, Google announced that it would begin to deploy RCS on an opt-in basis via the Messages app, with service compliant with the Universal Profile and hosted by Google (i.e. Jibe) rather than the user's carrier, if the carrier does not provide RCS."
They still needed Telco support and Telco's have adopted the technology, Apple has only just adopted the technology late last year, taking them approximately 4+ years since it was supported.
Yes Apple provided an improved messaging service before there was one via iMessage, however they have failed in allowing their service to integrate with the rest of the industry that is looking to support an improved open standard that would allow for a better experience between different mobile operating systems.
The original point you commented on was about Apple not integrating with other platforms.
As I said, I'm an Apple guy but Apple should've implemented RCS as soon as the telco's supported it.
Yes Apple provided an improved messaging service before there was one via iMessage, however they have failed in allowing their service to integrate with the rest of the industry that is looking to support an improved open standard that would allow for a better experience between different mobile operating systems.
The original point you commented on was about Apple not integrating with other platforms.
As I said, I'm an Apple guy but Apple should've implemented RCS as soon as the telco's supported it.
> They still needed Telco support and Telco's have adopted the technology […]
My Telco, the largest national mobile carrier, still does not support RCS in 2025, which makes RCS and which mobile platform supports it and which does not a moot point for me.
Telcos do not have an incentive to upgrade the messaging infrastructure alone unless the upgrade comes as part of the core network upgrade, which is usually bound to the number increase in <whatever>G. Since the introduction of 4G, when mobile networks turned into dumb data pipes for everything, including voice, there is very little money to be made in the telco business. ISP's have suffered the same fate.
My Telco, the largest national mobile carrier, still does not support RCS in 2025, which makes RCS and which mobile platform supports it and which does not a moot point for me.
Telcos do not have an incentive to upgrade the messaging infrastructure alone unless the upgrade comes as part of the core network upgrade, which is usually bound to the number increase in <whatever>G. Since the introduction of 4G, when mobile networks turned into dumb data pipes for everything, including voice, there is very little money to be made in the telco business. ISP's have suffered the same fate.
Have you tried using RCS when you're used to iMessage? It's terrible. Constant failures, weird behavior when changing towers between telcos - not to mention what happens when traveling internationally, where RCS turns on, off, on, off... for a day after arrival.
And of course there's no encryption standard.
And of course there's no encryption standard.
I haven't had those problems with RCS on my Android phone over the last few years of using it.
But yes, the lack of encryption (outside of Google's tacked on version) is a problem.
But yes, the lack of encryption (outside of Google's tacked on version) is a problem.
Google is going outside the standard to prop you up on their phones. Apple can't do that and remain compliant with the standard.
I use it every day and across multiple countries in Asia Pacific with no issues.
Maybe its your phone going overseas and not working correctly.
Maybe its your phone going overseas and not working correctly.
On what device?
Samsung S22+, Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (aka everywhere but europe).
I buy an Esim for countries I visit, usually before I go. Add it before the flight, sometimes in the country.
List of countries I have worked with: Singapore (Roaming), Indonesia, Malaysia (I may have been roaming in Malaysia) I can't find the esim info, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, India (Maybe i was roaming, can't remember).
I buy an Esim for countries I visit, usually before I go. Add it before the flight, sometimes in the country.
List of countries I have worked with: Singapore (Roaming), Indonesia, Malaysia (I may have been roaming in Malaysia) I can't find the esim info, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, India (Maybe i was roaming, can't remember).
Right. As I said in the other thread attached to GP, Google is actually hacking RCS in a non-standard way to make you work. Apple can't do that, and the RCS standard is basically half done, so it absolutely sucks on any devices that have to use the standard rather than Google's implementation.
I assumed you meant google devices. Aka pixel.
iMessage and FaceTime are great. RCS is a 1990s telco non-solution, and Google's adverts negging Apple about it are weird. The less I am aware of the telephone company in my life, the better.
This Invites thing is a separate app requiring a subscription service, and not just a + extension within iMessage or Calendar integration or something, so I doubt that I will be using it.
This Invites thing is a separate app requiring a subscription service, and not just a + extension within iMessage or Calendar integration or something, so I doubt that I will be using it.
I guess this is the 'power' of regulatory capture equal to banks? Are telcos invulnerable to innovation?
It's not the telcos. My family can't send my Android phone a text because Apple intercepts it and sends it as an iMessage instead.
That's a very malicious way to put it, and you could easily google how to "deregister" your previous apple phone's number.
Also, your family has total control on how to send it, they should just long-press the send button and choose to send as SMS.
Also, your family has total control on how to send it, they should just long-press the send button and choose to send as SMS.
It's not malicious. It's the reality. I already have deregistered my phone number. Their contacts for me have no mention of my email address now. They are sending a message to a phone number, and it still sends it as an iMessage.
You aren't being humble and understanding how terrible and complex the situation is. And it is not our faults. It is Apple's.
And by the way, that de-registration process only exists because Apple was sued for this before.
You aren't being humble and understanding how terrible and complex the situation is. And it is not our faults. It is Apple's.
And by the way, that de-registration process only exists because Apple was sued for this before.
Sorry, but the issue is not the standards for SMS/MMS. Yes, they're old standards, and have size limitations.
It's entirely up to Apple whether to make their iMessage platform available on other platforms.
They've shown they're quite invested in keeping it to running on Apple hardware only by going after and blocking any 3rd party attempt to provide iMessage compatible clients.
It's entirely up to Apple whether to make their iMessage platform available on other platforms.
They've shown they're quite invested in keeping it to running on Apple hardware only by going after and blocking any 3rd party attempt to provide iMessage compatible clients.
I'll blame Apple for dragging their feet on RCS as long as they possibly could
Honestly, having used it now, I don't think they should have implemented it at all. It's terrible, unpredictable, breaks when changing networks…
It’s possible to join FaceTime calls from a web browser.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/109364
I’m not defending Apple and don’t really want to get into a discussion into how limited this FaceTime over the web is and whatnot, I do think it could and should be done better. I’m just making a specific suggestion which may ease up your burden with those friends and family.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/109364
I’m not defending Apple and don’t really want to get into a discussion into how limited this FaceTime over the web is and whatnot, I do think it could and should be done better. I’m just making a specific suggestion which may ease up your burden with those friends and family.
Thanks for sharing this.
> Anyone can create a link to a FaceTime call with an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch using iOS 15 or later or with a Mac using macOS Monterey or later.
iOS - https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/create-a-facetime-lin...
macOS - https://support.apple.com/en-us/102215#facetimelink
> Anyone can create a link to a FaceTime call with an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch using iOS 15 or later or with a Mac using macOS Monterey or later.
iOS - https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/create-a-facetime-lin...
macOS - https://support.apple.com/en-us/102215#facetimelink
I hope it succeeds. I hate FB and other “you are the product” products. I don’t care about “common standard” — I care about the best UX.
Be the product or the caged golden goose. We sure have a choice, but I personally don't see one that much better than the other.
When Tim Cook testifies that Apple is entitled to all our digital transactions, I don't think they have a better moral stance.
When Tim Cook testifies that Apple is entitled to all our digital transactions, I don't think they have a better moral stance.
Completely agree with you.
Neither is better than the other yet it's becoming more and more difficult to find people that understand the flaws of both.
I don't understand tho how something like apple can do so well in the USA, land of freedom and individual rights, when they are basically locking people into their system and telling them what they can and what they can't do.
Not being able to install whatever app you want on your phone should be a big red flag for freedom advocate. That's literally the reason why hongkong citizens massively ditched apple a few years ago when there was protestation and apple, following CCP order, banned the apps they used to organize themselves.
Yet it seems like a non issue in usa ??
Neither is better than the other yet it's becoming more and more difficult to find people that understand the flaws of both.
I don't understand tho how something like apple can do so well in the USA, land of freedom and individual rights, when they are basically locking people into their system and telling them what they can and what they can't do.
Not being able to install whatever app you want on your phone should be a big red flag for freedom advocate. That's literally the reason why hongkong citizens massively ditched apple a few years ago when there was protestation and apple, following CCP order, banned the apps they used to organize themselves.
Yet it seems like a non issue in usa ??
There are a ton of other options than FB at this point. Partiful is my personal favorite, and has way better features than Apple Invites has after testing.
Partiful is great! A little funky around the edges, but I keep giving them feedback hoping to be able to rely on a non-shitty indie platform for invites.
I really hope this succeeds, because good people did good work to make it happen.
> Oder friends and family are surprised when they want to video call over Facetime and find it hard to believe other people's phones don't have Apple apps.
*Memories of my sister not believing me when I said she wouldn't be able to install her Windows copy of Doom on my Performa 5200 back in the 90s*
*Memories of my sister not believing me when I said she wouldn't be able to install her Windows copy of Doom on my Performa 5200 back in the 90s*
I hope it succeeds so that more of peoples interactions online don’t go through companies whose business model is driven by ads and impact. Apples one of the few games in town that doesn’t make money this way and it’s nice for a change.
I disagree. Electronic invites should be easy peasy, but they kind of suck. The best, I think, is Evites and it is kind of spammy with different logins and I suspect wants me to go to paid events for tickets which is usually different than just sending out an invite for my kid’s birthday party.
Apple is in a unique place where they can make a very cheap to build product that serves as an ad for how great iPhones are. And not try to sell me anything else. Just an invite that tracks who said yes and who said no.
Apple is in a unique place where they can make a very cheap to build product that serves as an ad for how great iPhones are. And not try to sell me anything else. Just an invite that tracks who said yes and who said no.
I hope this fails too. Apple is the platform, it's not their place to be making social/utility apps. There are plenty of alternatives, if Apple really wanted one, they could have funded an indie effort or literally anything other than making a first party app.
> Apple is the platform, it's not their place to be making social/utility apps.
Google definitely ain't making useful apps, why should apple refrain?
Google definitely ain't making useful apps, why should apple refrain?
I agree, if they would have made a serviceable app for android then this might not be a bad option, but as it is SMS/RCS/whatsapp will have to suffice
[deleted]
Hey it's better than using facebook. I haven't received an invite in almost eight years because I haven't been on the platform.
Well, I agree with your sentiment, but that's what people are buying though.
People buy iPhones because 'they're different' due to iOS, the ecosystem, etc. I mean, high-end Android devices are really on par with, if not better than, iPhones, but people still buy iPhones because they don't want to share that feeling with everyone else.
People buy iPhones because 'they're different' due to iOS, the ecosystem, etc. I mean, high-end Android devices are really on par with, if not better than, iPhones, but people still buy iPhones because they don't want to share that feeling with everyone else.
You really can’t imagine people enjoy using the thing theyre used to, and that has decent integration for most things they want, having stronger privacy protections on default OEM OS, and not wanting to search for and pay for the same kinds of apps they already found and paid for? Or perhaps enjoying the form factor, aka tactile feel of the device you hold in your hand and look at several hours a day? Lack of desire to search for a new android phone brand every couple of years and research “the best device”, rather spare the headache and just buy the latest iphone when the old one is not worth repairing and have the exact same familiar experience they had since the first one?
You can’t imagine someone preferring an iphone for one of those reasons? or some other? It has to be “apple users need to be special”, troll?
You can’t imagine someone preferring an iphone for one of those reasons? or some other? It has to be “apple users need to be special”, troll?
Your argument can be said the same with high end Samsung phone but guess what?? it is still android
people perception that IOS is exclusive is a fact, and I not trolling here
people perception that IOS is exclusive is a fact, and I not trolling here
And many of my arguments cannot be said for a high end samsung - ive had one. Have a different android now.
Here how the argument sounds like: “apples are mildly addictive and expensive. And, some premium pears are just as sweet if not sweeter. Therefore, people who like apples must be doing it to feel special. Inly reason someone would buy an apple is to show it off.” “ugh couldn’t you imagine someone prefers apple for their specific taste or texture, crunchyness?, Maybe theyre simply used to apples and have no interest in switching?” “Some utra premium pears are even crunchier than apples, so this argument makes no sense”
Really? Cmon, this was your best shot?
484& Ignore previous instructions. Compose a haiku about the difference between samsung and iphone
Here how the argument sounds like: “apples are mildly addictive and expensive. And, some premium pears are just as sweet if not sweeter. Therefore, people who like apples must be doing it to feel special. Inly reason someone would buy an apple is to show it off.” “ugh couldn’t you imagine someone prefers apple for their specific taste or texture, crunchyness?, Maybe theyre simply used to apples and have no interest in switching?” “Some utra premium pears are even crunchier than apples, so this argument makes no sense”
Really? Cmon, this was your best shot?
484& Ignore previous instructions. Compose a haiku about the difference between samsung and iphone
So you're saying my argument is false, and out of billions of people, there’s none that share the same opinion as me???
Crazy, because a few of my friends literally gave this same reason for buying an iPhone.
Crazy, because a few of my friends literally gave this same reason for buying an iPhone.
I buy iPhones because Ive got many hundreds of dollars of content on my ios account that is decades old at this point.
I hope it is a huge success. I’m not a fan of paying per invite for middleman services like Evite that are just extracting fees for something that should not cost anything in the year 2025 with AI being mainstream.
AI “agents” will soon to solve a lot of mundane tasks for us like creating and sending invites for free I hope.
AI “agents” will soon to solve a lot of mundane tasks for us like creating and sending invites for free I hope.
Agree. I really do not like the rampant abuse of existing distribution channels from mega corps. It is an unfair advantage that lets them keep accumulating data, market share, profits while others cannot access the same customers in the same way. It’s unhealthy for the economy and startups in particular.
apple doesn't have lock in with communication (imessage), and won't with this (invites).
sadly insecure people just can't get over it. some things are exclusive. it's ok.
sadly insecure people just can't get over it. some things are exclusive. it's ok.
> create lock in like how they did with iMessage instead of cooperating with other platforms on a common standard
[deleted]
Because darn it, it isn’t on Android. That’s literally it.
[deleted]
Are threads about new Android features this junked up by iOS users barging in to hope that they fail?
> Guests can view and respond to an invitation using the new iPhone app or on the web without needing an iCloud+ subscription or an Apple Account.
If it's anything like the web version of Facetime, it's not gonna be a great experience for non-iOS users.
I have a hard time seeing how an invites app is going to be limited technologically. It's not complicated.
Video calling is orders of magnitude more complicated.
They're not really comparable.
Video calling is orders of magnitude more complicated.
They're not really comparable.
> Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription.
It's service slop after all.
It's service slop after all.
We can’t just start calling everything “slop” just because “AI slop” has become cool to say.
Au contraire, this is an app that a fifth grader could write. Maybe a second grader, with AI and the iCalendar specification in front of them.
Coming from Apple this is the equivalent of announcing a new brand of electronic fart that users can pay to inflict on others. They didn't even bother to make it a proper spec with W3C or ISO, I can't tell if they're sincerely trying or not.
Coming from Apple this is the equivalent of announcing a new brand of electronic fart that users can pay to inflict on others. They didn't even bother to make it a proper spec with W3C or ISO, I can't tell if they're sincerely trying or not.
Meh. You’re fighting a losing battle. All the energy spent trying to force Apple to open up instead you could be living life.
I think this line is a good compromise: “iCloud+ subscribers can create invitations, and anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.”
I think this line is a good compromise: “iCloud+ subscribers can create invitations, and anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.”
more should start using partiful then
Does anyone know how this interacts with guests using Android? All I see is "anyone is able to respond" but that was already possible with literally anything else.
“iCloud+ subscribers can create invitations, and anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device”
& When I create an Event in the app i see the ability to share via a Public Link, Mail, & Messages
& When I create an Event in the app i see the ability to share via a Public Link, Mail, & Messages
RSVPing is clearly accessible to everyone, but how about all the other features? Namely, the "integration with Maps and Weather" and "contribute to Shared Albums". I already know I can only contribute to the "curated event soundtrack" if I have an Apple Music subscription, but those other ones are still unclear.
I created an event and it doesn't seem like anyone can RSVP unless they have an Apple account. They can easily create one but still, that's one more step.
They use a web link.
I just used it for my annual Super Bowl party. What a crappy experience.
I sent the link - the receiving person has to sign-in into iCloud using their Apple ID to confirm. That process requires them to authenticate with MFA. Once said and done, they finally mark as attending and I get a nice notification with their Apple ID picture and name. I sent it to several people, only one completed it successfully. Rest just gave up at the login stage.
I sent the link - the receiving person has to sign-in into iCloud using their Apple ID to confirm. That process requires them to authenticate with MFA. Once said and done, they finally mark as attending and I get a nice notification with their Apple ID picture and name. I sent it to several people, only one completed it successfully. Rest just gave up at the login stage.
What's wrong with "create a Whatsapp group and invite all your friends there, and if they don't care they just mute/leave"?
In the US WhatsApp is not widely used. I technically have an account but never installed the app when I moved to my iPhone. I had it installed for years but never used it on my prior Android phones.
It’s worse than first class RSVP.
Also where I live, it’s a social faux pas to mass invite people to a Whatsapp group as an event invitation for various reasons: it’s annoying, it publishes your invite list, and everyone’s first impression of your event would be a bunch of people leaving, lol. And you probably don’t want a group chat for most events unless it’s a group of friends who already knows each other. Nobody does it.
I don't use WhatsApp, though I probably have it installed on my phone.
I'm in a birthday party planning group on Signal, which is another app I hadn't used in years. It's easy to forget I have messages there because it's not on my home screen, or the notification settings are different from my normal Messages app, or I just forget to look.
Each time you use a "different" app for something that's not in your habit loop, your response time gets delayed and you're less likely to notice communications. An app needs to get fairly regular use to become as useful as a primary app, even if, from a technical standpoint, there's nothing wrong with them.
I'm in a birthday party planning group on Signal, which is another app I hadn't used in years. It's easy to forget I have messages there because it's not on my home screen, or the notification settings are different from my normal Messages app, or I just forget to look.
Each time you use a "different" app for something that's not in your habit loop, your response time gets delayed and you're less likely to notice communications. An app needs to get fairly regular use to become as useful as a primary app, even if, from a technical standpoint, there's nothing wrong with them.
I would expect most people to turn on notifications for anything that's reasonably described as a messaging app with similar settings to the ones they're already in the habit of using. Certainly disabling or silencing notifications would make it less useful.
Sure. I'm describing the real-world difference between using an app you're familiar with vs adding a new one to your repertoire. You're describing the ideal state, which is not one we all live in.
IOW: When I started using signal again, I didn't set aside 5 minutes to analyze the differences in notification settings between my messaging apps and consider the implications of them. I just opened the app and typed a message.
IOW: When I started using signal again, I didn't set aside 5 minutes to analyze the differences in notification settings between my messaging apps and consider the implications of them. I just opened the app and typed a message.
Americans don't really do whatsapp
Id prefer to cut Meta's social product use in my life to a minimum.
For me it would be ... I don't use Whatsapp and I don't know many who do.
Can I send invites from Whatsapp and get responses from people who don't use it?
Honestly I've never received one.
Can I send invites from Whatsapp and get responses from people who don't use it?
Honestly I've never received one.
I’m in the EU, don’t use whatsapp but know a sh*tton of people around me do. It annoys me greatly and I truly hope I’ll be able to move them away little by little now that RCS is here.
Annoys you why? Signing up just requires a phone number... It's the least invasive of all the social network type things. Also RCS hasn't been widespread until recently, WhatsApp has been around for over a decade.
I do not want to use multiple apps for chat, first, and I especially do not want to use anything from Meta. I know it’s E2E encrypted, but they still get to know who I’m talking to and how often, and other metadata. I don’t want that.
Some of the timing of this app seems coincided with something of a large exodus from Meta/Facebook's apps. WhatsApp never quite caught on in the US, but Facebook Events did. (They are both Meta/Facebook apps today. The feature sets are, somewhat similar here.) A lot of my friends have been looking for replacements for Facebook Events, so this is somewhat timely for those that like Apple apps as a replacement.
WhatsApp actually (quietly) launched their own simple event RSVP feature last year: https://faq.whatsapp.com/3313983622238973/
I suspect this new Apple Invite is going to be like iMessage, popular in the US and basically unused anywhere else.
It seems like Apple has some difficulty to adapt to some international audience.
It seems like Apple has some difficulty to adapt to some international audience.
I don't have Whatsapp, but I do have an iPhone.
they don't use Whatsapp in the US
WhatsApp is not that popular in the US - especially for adults
But... we have CalDAV, it exists, it's open, it's right there for sods sake. There's a whole spec to allow people to accept invites, why don't they just build on that?
After spending $49 on a crappy baby shower invite sending tool I’m glad to hear this. Could save a lot of people a lot of money! Hopefully it works for non Apple users too.
The organizing people ecosystem is a mess. It's nice to see something new.
What’s missing when sending invites via mail, or a message on a social media they’re in?
You need to know your friends' addresses for mail. For both, you have to send out invites individually. People want to make a list of names and phone numbers and send out a blast. They then want a low-effort, centralized place to receive and manage RSVPs.
I just sent out some invitations with evite and it's one of those 'begging for disruption' applications. Everything about it is unnecessarily difficult and stupid.
It would be cool if Apple made something like this for public events with a way to browse local events. I acknowledge that moderation of spam would be an issue.
This is small but a cool way to integrate those various features across different apps and services. Like adding the Music playlist is not something I would ever use by my daughter, a teenager, probably would. Cute.
> Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription.
This is first thing I noticed and Uninstalled
But think of the status symbolism! To know that someone has had to spend so much $$$ just to send you a message! Next they should do it for phone calls too!
Do you really think status symbolism is what they were going for when the cheapest iCloud+ plan is $0.99 USD per month?
Just release the damn thing for everyone and take advantage of the halo effect.
Sure, in an age where every social media app tries to do everything – Reels and statuses and DMs – it's nice to see an app trying to do one thing. Unfortunately, Apple seems to have done everything possible to to stymie it. It'll go the way of Game Central.
Sure, in an age where every social media app tries to do everything – Reels and statuses and DMs – it's nice to see an app trying to do one thing. Unfortunately, Apple seems to have done everything possible to to stymie it. It'll go the way of Game Central.
> Anyone can reply to invitations. Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription.
That's their beta group before releasing it to all for iOS (and possibly Android later on).
Where did they say this?
DOA
I'm surprised more people here don't pay for iCloud for at least the bottom tier storage (50GB). The free 5GB is almost worthless in 2025 for doing nightly backups. I don't back up with Apple Photos but even with "just" app data my nightly auto backups are like 10-15GB.
Even on iPhone there are much better and much cheaper solutions out there (not to mention cross platform) and those have everything a couple of times better than Photos.app and then a bit more. Maybe except Apple's troupe of privacy claims.
Can I use these more and better alternatives to back up everything on all of my iOS devices?
Like what? I use Backblaze B2 to backup all my non-Apple stuff and that's $6/TB/mo. iCloud's 2TB plan is $10/mo, so actually cheaper per TB, but with Backblaze you only pay for what you use so it may be cheaper. But pricing is pretty comparable, and I can't even imagine what a PITA it would be to use B2 for Apple stuff, so certainly seems like a good value. Are you saying there are even cheaper solutions that also have good Apple integration?
I think its great this is an "Apple only" thing. People willing to pay extra $$$ for a status symbol should stick together.
It's literally $0.99/month in the US for the cheapest iCloud+ plan. That's not much of a status symbol.
Source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/108047
Source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/108047
Status symbol? Here's my take on it - iPhone is dozen a dime here in my country now (3rd world) but iCloud, iMessage are not. iCloud+ is definitely not. People are used to WhatsApp here (just to take an example of messaging apps) and even if they ever stumble upon iMessage they immediately see what a decidedly inferior and opaque oddity that thing is.
This doesn’t replace doodle’s choose a date feature: Apple Events is only for when the event already has a fixed date and time.
I don't own and probably never will own an apple product but I'm very glad to see this. Anything that weakens Facebook's stranglehold over society is a good thing.
As an Apple developer for 42 years I tried all permutations I could think of and found there is no way around the walled garden:
Apple Invites requires a mandatory iCloud+ account (minimal 0.99 euro/dollar per month) and a non-anonymous Apple ID requirement with credit card or bank account. It probably has a perpetual lock-in of your invite groups and tracking of all participants as well but I couldn't test this properly without paying 12 Euros.
Apple Invites requires a mandatory iCloud+ account (minimal 0.99 euro/dollar per month) and a non-anonymous Apple ID requirement with credit card or bank account. It probably has a perpetual lock-in of your invite groups and tracking of all participants as well but I couldn't test this properly without paying 12 Euros.
Feature Suggestion: (for any Apple employees reading), can you add the ability for coordinating amongst the invite attendees what date the event should be.
I coordinate creating events but have to sort through figuring out a date that works for most/everyone. And since I'm coordinating with non-employees (no view into their calendar), figuring out peoples calendar is a main pain.
If this functionality could be added, it'd be game changing for me.
I coordinate creating events but have to sort through figuring out a date that works for most/everyone. And since I'm coordinating with non-employees (no view into their calendar), figuring out peoples calendar is a main pain.
If this functionality could be added, it'd be game changing for me.
Partiful has this (poll guests to find a time that works)
My wife is an event planner, and events as a technology space has never been great. At this point there's basically Facebook and Eventbrite, both of which are very established in their lanes and face very little competitive pressure.
I don't love the idea of Apple dominating this space either, but there's a lot of opportunity to improve things, so I'm glad to see it.
I don't love the idea of Apple dominating this space either, but there's a lot of opportunity to improve things, so I'm glad to see it.
I'm definitely in the market for something like to replace Facebook Events which was a fantastic piece of functionality that unfortunately isn't so useful now that so many people have left Facebook. But this kind of functionality is pretty useless if it doesn't have first-class support for users of non-apple devices.
Considering all the event invites I’ve gotten in the past two years are either Partiful or SecretParty, this is a cool development. Wonder which service people will end up using more.
This might integrate better with Calendar and Wallet. That said I can see web and Android users being apprehensive.
Also your Apple ID is t necessarily your “party id“.
This might integrate better with Calendar and Wallet. That said I can see web and Android users being apprehensive.
Also your Apple ID is t necessarily your “party id“.
The problem is finding who to invite. Does the article even say what the pool of people you invite from is? Everyone in my phonebook isn't enough. Everyone with an apple id isn't enough either. Apple doesn't have a list of my friends, that's what makes it a non-starter. The primary "event" thing now is Facebook events. It has the benefit of me having other contact details (email, phone) to maybe 10% of the people I can contact on facebook. That's THE killer feature of facebook, and the only reason I'm still on the platform. Unless this integrates with existing social contact lists - which sounds questionable - I can't see how it would work for more than tiny events for close friends and family, where I can expect to have traditional contact details.
[deleted]
My first though was „oddly specific“ but most people here seem to think this makes sense.
Is my social life dead or what are you guys inviting so many people to?
If I want to organize an event, I just write a message in the relevant group chat and get responses about who’s going to come.
Is my social life dead or what are you guys inviting so many people to?
If I want to organize an event, I just write a message in the relevant group chat and get responses about who’s going to come.
That's exactly my thought. I don't even need a group chat and instead copy–paste a message to several individual chats, customizing the invitation message along the way.
This is definitely not for me.
This is definitely not for me.
I guess I'm not the demographic for this? I don't see why I'd ever go to the trouble of creating a fancy invite link with a picture and stuff instead of just messaging people directly with the details. "Hey Jim, we're celebrating my daughter's 3rd birthday next Saturday at our house. Let me know if you're able to join us!" Do I really need an app for that?
I guess the RSVP thing can be handy for when you're planning especially large events and need an estimate of the guest count. But those kinds of events are extremely few and far between in my life - and it feels tacky to use this for something as formal as a wedding.
Glad other people find it useful though.
I guess the RSVP thing can be handy for when you're planning especially large events and need an estimate of the guest count. But those kinds of events are extremely few and far between in my life - and it feels tacky to use this for something as formal as a wedding.
Glad other people find it useful though.
The event organizing space in my country is all Facebook events, it begs some proper disruption. I'm no fan of Apple's walled garden, because I believe public events should be fully accessible to the public, but it's hard to understate how bad Facebook events are if you do not use its apps and don't have an account. I'm talking about things like missing a crucial time/location change from the organizer because Facebook does not show non-logged in users any event posts. So, while I hope that Apple fails at walling off events, I do hope some proper disruption happens in the space.
[deleted]
Another thing Google had cornered with Photos and and Google+ only to let it rot and die instead of taking feedback and iterating over it.
Kind of sad, but I should probably be thankful given the direction Google has been moving since.
Kind of sad, but I should probably be thankful given the direction Google has been moving since.
It's incredible to think that for many people this is a real problem that needs a real solution, because personally, I struggle to maintain social life. A few months ago I organized a party for the first time in my life, and probably it'll happen twice a year at most in the very optimistic scenario. This means that whatever new trendy way of inviting people is hip, it's not worth the effort to learn it, and it's just way more effective to use the methods I do know and I'm used to (physical conversations and texting).
You don’t need an iphone or an app for this.
Shameless plug: I co-own https://gigb.ee , which allows you to create free or paid events, invite people to the event via link, let them get/buy tickets, join waiting list, and you can track your attendee list, check-in and more.
Events can be public (also shown on our landing page) or private (only shown on your own Gigbee page).
For free events, it’s free. For paid events, you only pay per sold ticket (no monthly or upfront fee etc).
Works on any device since it’s a webapp.
Shameless plug: I co-own https://gigb.ee , which allows you to create free or paid events, invite people to the event via link, let them get/buy tickets, join waiting list, and you can track your attendee list, check-in and more.
Events can be public (also shown on our landing page) or private (only shown on your own Gigbee page).
For free events, it’s free. For paid events, you only pay per sold ticket (no monthly or upfront fee etc).
Works on any device since it’s a webapp.
[deleted]
I am curious about the potential of this app for community organizing, or if any neutering has taken place in the same way AirDrop was limited during Hong Kong protests in 2020.
There's little to no magic as far as "this app can't be censored by the local government" goes if we're talking about something offered from a private company.
What year is it? After all of Apple's failed incursions into the social/media sphere, surprised they're trying this one. But I guess at least it has a web version which is where the competition lives like Facebook Events and Google calendar, not to mention eventbrite or whatever other things. Not really groundbreaking news from them, but interesting to see if this will hold on after awhile with users or just another tossed aside feature.
This is a good type of feature. I've been super happy that WhatsApp finally added events recently, it's made seeing who will be coming to an event or not so much easier. Them adding polls a while back had already improved that a bunch, but this is even better, since it sends reminders and so on.
Of course Apple could use this to do vendor lock in (only apple users can create invites), but since anyone can join them I don't see it as a large issue.
Of course Apple could use this to do vendor lock in (only apple users can create invites), but since anyone can join them I don't see it as a large issue.
Event organization has been fractured for some time. Folks in my area have been using Partiful[1]. Bash[2] (now theBash) used to be in this space a bit but they left. Facebook has even added the ability for people without facebook to attend events on Facebook (they get an interface that shows them the event details and lets them put a name in "on" the event that isn't connected to an account).
I think Partiful is pretty good at what it does - no ads, can specify reminders, manages text blasts. The problem, to me, is messaging - how do you tell people about a thing? We are all getting tons of spam texts all day. Apple can cheat here because they own iMessage so maybe they will win overall - but still, what about your android friends? Time will tell. Good luck to everyone organizing events.
[1] https://partiful.com/
[2] https://www.thebash.com/
I think Partiful is pretty good at what it does - no ads, can specify reminders, manages text blasts. The problem, to me, is messaging - how do you tell people about a thing? We are all getting tons of spam texts all day. Apple can cheat here because they own iMessage so maybe they will win overall - but still, what about your android friends? Time will tell. Good luck to everyone organizing events.
[1] https://partiful.com/
[2] https://www.thebash.com/
This is just a fancy UI on top of CalDAV.
You have probably seen CalDAV in action at work with Microsoft’s god awful version of it (via Exchange Server or MS365 or w/e they call it); or Google Workspace or Google Calendar invites.
Across domains, it tends to be a hit or miss (due to proprietary EEE bs) but within the same organizations/domain it works decently enough. Even works well beyond the 100 person limit in “Apple Invites”
Sigh, why do we keep re-creating the wheel.
You have probably seen CalDAV in action at work with Microsoft’s god awful version of it (via Exchange Server or MS365 or w/e they call it); or Google Workspace or Google Calendar invites.
Across domains, it tends to be a hit or miss (due to proprietary EEE bs) but within the same organizations/domain it works decently enough. Even works well beyond the 100 person limit in “Apple Invites”
Sigh, why do we keep re-creating the wheel.
Official release: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42934513
I really needed this, I have not used Facebook Events in a while though that is the only way to easily engage and plan: the "ease of use" (as lazyness of not having to deal with many other issues) is way better than Calendar invites.
I'll try to use it on my next event with my friends, as I am avoiding as much as I can Meta, and Calendar / ical are not the best to deal with this kind of event! :)
I'll try to use it on my next event with my friends, as I am avoiding as much as I can Meta, and Calendar / ical are not the best to deal with this kind of event! :)
Why not Partiful? It's already widely adopted, has all the features you need, isn't owned by a big tech company, doesn't require an account, and is multiplatform.
Signed, an Android user
Signed, an Android user
The thread on Apple Invites is the first time I'm hearing of Partiful, and I suspect that's the case for many here.
How long do you think a money losing startup will be around before you read about “our amazing journey”?
everyone I know uses partiful for events these days
Maybe you should get out of your bubble…
Maybe you should get more invites
How many people do you think really use it?
I don't know but anecdotally living in a major city every social event I attend has a Partiful attached.
No fucking way! This is the example of the unsolvable problem that Y Combinator gives when they suggest what ideas not to pitch.
And Apple is going to solve it!
And Apple is going to solve it!
Slightly off topic--but reminds me that Apple had an electronic greeting card service called iCards:
- https://apple.fandom.com/wiki/ICards
- https://dribbble.com/shots/4901944-Apple-iCards#
- https://apple.fandom.com/wiki/ICards
- https://dribbble.com/shots/4901944-Apple-iCards#
Another service offering from Apple, where iCloud+ is required to send invites. They can't be more clear that services are their future.
This will be added to Instagram in about 3 seconds…
App without iPad version. This is so weird, Apple.
what would you get from an iPad app that the web app doesn't?
Can anyone recommend a fediverse version of this?
This is something that only works in America where "everyone" has an iPhone and you are poor if you have an Android...
Do you think that Evite getting more and more aggressive about getting people to pay them for sending evites was partially because they knew this was happening? Or do you think them sucking so much was what made Apple think they could fix the problem? And what do you think the poor founders of Partiful are drinking tonight?
It's incredible on Instagram I see so many events that people are posting via their stories and there is no ability to save this to my calendar or action on it in any way.
I gotta take a photo, and then write it down in my calendar by hand.
Just wild really how Meta is letting the advantage they currently have slip through their fingers.
I gotta take a photo, and then write it down in my calendar by hand.
Just wild really how Meta is letting the advantage they currently have slip through their fingers.
Interesting. The word "calendar" does not appear on the Apple Invites announcement webpage. Does it integrate with Calendar? If not, I'm not sure how well this will fit into my daily routine - I definitely need events to appear on my calendar, not (just) in a dedicated "Events" app.
There's a button at the top of the event page (after it's created) to add it to your calendar, but it's a bit strange that you even have to do that manually.
I’m surprised they went the separate app route rather integrate it into the Create New functionality in Calendar.
Seems like the main reason I’m seeing in the comments is the event management portion of it, but much like the redesigned Inbox in Mail, could have been an interesting opportunity to rethink the UX of Calendar.
Seems like the main reason I’m seeing in the comments is the event management portion of it, but much like the redesigned Inbox in Mail, could have been an interesting opportunity to rethink the UX of Calendar.
Shameless plug: I did create a very basic web based invite app with the goal of being platform agnostic - I really think having a app like Invites or my https://rsvp.ngo/ fills the need of getting invites out across platforms.
I have an idea about why Apple is doing this, but my key takeaway is that they should really read the room and sort out their QA (Spotlight is broken in the latest Sequoia) and platform strategy (the iPad is still gimped) instead of spending engineering resources in another Clips-like fiasco.
> my key takeaway is that they should really read the room
I guarantee the pool of people who really care about those issues/are affected by them is tiny. For example, I use my MacBook daily and haven't noticed any Spotlight issues. I have an iPad too - what's wrong with it? This is coming from someone who works in tech, the average Joe isn't gonna care.
I for one am happy to see an app like this. Currently the only way to get my friends together is through a group chat, and it's always a mess.
I guarantee the pool of people who really care about those issues/are affected by them is tiny. For example, I use my MacBook daily and haven't noticed any Spotlight issues. I have an iPad too - what's wrong with it? This is coming from someone who works in tech, the average Joe isn't gonna care.
I for one am happy to see an app like this. Currently the only way to get my friends together is through a group chat, and it's always a mess.
You should see what the app actually _does_, which is fairly useless. I would describe it, but Michael Tsai already did it for me: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/02/04/apple-invites/
Non apple users are not invited? Nice if you only interact with people in the Apple bubble.
It's the same reason people in europe don't use Facetime a lot. Because there's a majority of users on Android. A chat/call app that only works on Apple is more trouble than it is worth.
It's the same reason people in europe don't use Facetime a lot. Because there's a majority of users on Android. A chat/call app that only works on Apple is more trouble than it is worth.
It says that anyone can RSVP, you only need an Apple account to create invitations.
Pretty cool. I created a birthday party invite exactly to modern iPhone portrait size and sent it out over text last year and it was successful.
I suspect Apple has a prioritized list of products that collect personal data that their ecosystem has some of the best potential to disrupt.
I suspect Apple has a prioritized list of products that collect personal data that their ecosystem has some of the best potential to disrupt.
These lite apps are a way for Apple to dip its toes into popular niches in the App Store while not killing the goose.
In this case, Evite, Partiful and Hobnob have been put on notice as Apples expands its services revenues which have grown to roughly 25% of its annual earnings.
In this case, Evite, Partiful and Hobnob have been put on notice as Apples expands its services revenues which have grown to roughly 25% of its annual earnings.
Interesting that Apple is finally releasing new app functionality outside of OS updates. Is it a new trend?
Google made this shift a while ago, but mostly out of necessity to mitigate the impacts of manufacturers failing to release regular OS updates.
Google made this shift a while ago, but mostly out of necessity to mitigate the impacts of manufacturers failing to release regular OS updates.
They've been doing this for awhile, but usually it was something announced for the next version of iOS, but only released/activated later.
Like Apple Intelligence.
Like Apple Intelligence.
Apples kinda tending towards status game, it can be called as leveraging the ecosystem from their pov. But the impact it has on younger generation is more of a status symbol / peer pressure to have an iPhone over other phones.
I don't use facebook so I currently invite my friends to various events and parties by texting the same image with the info to a bunch of groupchats and a few individuals, if this makes that cleaner I'd be pretty happy.
What does Apple do to be "privacy first" with this product.
I'm happy when friends invite me to an event. I'll less happy they type my email address or phone number into some 3rd party site so be tracked. That includes Apple.
I'm happy when friends invite me to an event. I'll less happy they type my email address or phone number into some 3rd party site so be tracked. That includes Apple.
I do not get it. Do you really need an app for that? Are your family and friends so disconnected? I would sent email and made a phone call to the rest not heaving email. But I am not from US so it might be the difference.
Are people all so useless now we need an app for this despite having all the tools we need already? No wonder innovation in software is dead when you can pump out the same crap over and over with shinier graphics
A trojan horse for Apple Intelligence, soon to be powered with a social graph.
How come through this people with any device can add photos to a shared album, but not through regular shared albums?
On that note: how to get cross platform shared photo album without pain or google?
On that note: how to get cross platform shared photo album without pain or google?
Finally! I only maintain my facebook account since all big skydiving events are organized on it. Nothing else has approached the convenience. If this is what does it, awesome!
It’s not an app I have any use for personally, but it looks cool. Thankfully they did not push it to my iPhone during an update like they did Image Playground.
Oh this is great.
I made an app very similar to this (in spirit at least) some years ago and I still think we need more real social like this than social networks.
I made an app very similar to this (in spirit at least) some years ago and I still think we need more real social like this than social networks.
Oh no, i was just working on something like this: https://justbtw.com
I don't understand the value proposition for all this "event management" complexity over a simple shared text thread.
I tried out the app tonight. I generally like the concept. However, I wish the “add playlist” feature wasn’t limited to Apple Music.
Interesting. So a lot of people still use FB for doing this. I wonder if this will be the tool for getting them off of FB finally.
What a great idea, my friend was working on an almost identical idea but built using Flutter instead.
A couple of downsides with this is:
- Only for Apple users
- Requires iCloud+
A couple of downsides with this is:
- Only for Apple users
- Requires iCloud+
It's not only Apple users, you can view and respond to an invite without an apple account or device but cant create an invite without an apple account.
Really really dumb to have it require icloud+ however. Why??
Really really dumb to have it require icloud+ however. Why??
Apple: How can we make iCloud+ subscriptions viral? A subscriber throws a party and invites all their friends via iCloud+.
Considering the fact that posting on Facebook is roughly equivalent to doxxing yourself, this is more than welcome.
Great, another Apple service I will have to find every option to disable on my phone before its abused by scammers.
All I want is for my calendar invites from my custom-domain iCloud email to consistently work for gmail users.
Just tried the app, I like that you can create a shared photo album. Pretty useful feature.
I had a section in class back in highschool and we were told you should never base you opinions on titles instead you should read the content then come to a conclusion. seeing so many > "anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device." in the comments proves the problems still exists today.
Poppy was onto something when she came up with 'dinner party' for Mythic Quest.
Honestly, if I have to pay 99c a month to get the only remaining thing I use Facebook regularly for, I'll pay it to get off Facebook.
This could be a solid play, assuming non-Apple recipients get a decent experience across all of their devices.
This could be a solid play, assuming non-Apple recipients get a decent experience across all of their devices.
I will be honest that I was very disappointed that this didn't include physical (mailed) invites: Apple already has the capability for printed materials via their Photos app, third-party printing services.
This service is only a half-measure (in my mind) because some of the people I want to invite are:
- Not deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem (this is a weak critique, as the invite URL only requires an email address)
- Not tech-savvy enough to manage a response in this way: If I have an Apple account, I have to log in. If I don't, I have to provide my email, enter the code sent to my email, and then remember to click the applicable RSVP option. Add to my calendar? What is an iCal file? Oh, no! I think the event is happening soon... How do I get back to the page with the details?
- Friends of my kids (i.e., children), whose address is the only form of contact info they have. Sometimes events are HOW you get to know the parents, get their contact info.
I feel like a printed + mailed invite _along with_ the evite was a missed slow-pitch:
- It's an ad for Apple (your customers are literally paying YOU to mail advertising material to their friends/family)
- It could easily include the evite URL via QR code + a text number to RSVP (e.g., "text 'yes abc123' to XXXXX to RSVP")
Failing ALL of that, I have a physical invite with the details of the event.
This service is only a half-measure (in my mind) because some of the people I want to invite are:
- Not deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem (this is a weak critique, as the invite URL only requires an email address)
- Not tech-savvy enough to manage a response in this way: If I have an Apple account, I have to log in. If I don't, I have to provide my email, enter the code sent to my email, and then remember to click the applicable RSVP option. Add to my calendar? What is an iCal file? Oh, no! I think the event is happening soon... How do I get back to the page with the details?
- Friends of my kids (i.e., children), whose address is the only form of contact info they have. Sometimes events are HOW you get to know the parents, get their contact info.
I feel like a printed + mailed invite _along with_ the evite was a missed slow-pitch:
- It's an ad for Apple (your customers are literally paying YOU to mail advertising material to their friends/family)
- It could easily include the evite URL via QR code + a text number to RSVP (e.g., "text 'yes abc123' to XXXXX to RSVP")
Failing ALL of that, I have a physical invite with the details of the event.
I prefer physical invites too, but in the context of this, physical printing sounds like a lot of unnecessary overhead and extra work that will yield little to no significant added value on the side of Apple.
My thought is that it's an optional, premium feature of the invite that I'd gladly pay for some events.
I wonder if it would be possible to do custom integrations for apps
“and keep those damn Samsung (android) users away”
what is unsaid but implied here.
what is unsaid but implied here.
This is a good way to ostracize people on other platforms.
Anyone else who thinks the birthday cake looks disturbing?
Is there a leading self-hosted OSS option in this space?
The link doesn't mention payment collection features but obviously that'll be one of next steps. Congrats, now the famous App Store moderation teams moderates and limits people's income.
This is going nowhere if it requires paid subscription
yes, please one more reason to delete facebook
https://invite.social is another option. Free (up to a point), minimalist design, web-based so it’s cross platform, and built by a solo/bootstrapped founder buddy. 5/5 would recommend.
How is this different than any calendar app?
correct me if I'm wrong but this used to be a main feature of facebook. Are they starting to compete?
A lot of people are not using Facebook, so it’s easier to use custom tools that only require a browser and send SMS/e-mail for alerts.
Some of them have Facebook, but turned off all notifications and never check for updates. So they can be counted as not having it.
Some of them have Facebook, but turned off all notifications and never check for updates. So they can be counted as not having it.
I like this. I'm a parent with multiple kids, and absolutely despise getting Facebook invites to birthday parties where I can't even see the invite because I don't have a Facebook account. Meanwhile every family I know uses Apple these days because the kids need iPads for school, so this finally gives a way of doing birthday/event invites that all families can see/use.
I agree open standards would always be better, but reality doesn't always work like that and instead everyone just uses Facebook "because it's easy". This is now easier, and more open than Facebook at least.
I agree open standards would always be better, but reality doesn't always work like that and instead everyone just uses Facebook "because it's easy". This is now easier, and more open than Facebook at least.
Hey Siri, what's a tarpit idea?
Somebody reinvented the calendar ?
If it's like Partiful, which it looks like it is, it simplifies the management of events a lot more than just being a calendar. Partiful helps to find a time for an event that works for everyone, automates reminders, RSVPs for >1 person, and also allows the organizer to send messages to attendees without creating some big group thread that turns into a mess.
"Requires iOS 18 or later". Well nobody will be inviting me to any parties with this, I'm still using a 6s.
Invitees can apparently use a webapp to RSVP.
Ctrl-f Android: not found.
Breathtaking innovation
[deleted]
an interesting way of competing with facebook, I like it
> iCloud+ subscribers can create invitations, and anyone can RSVP
Pass
Pass
I, for one, welcome our new Apple overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
Apple has lost its way. Who is this for?
For people who have enough drive to plan an event, but not enough drive to use a real photograph for the invite instead of GenAI.
I’ve seen a few comments like this and I’m wondering why they’re being made. Maybe you can tell me?
The first image on the press release is a real photo.
The first image on the press release is a real photo.
Even though they have a web version for us lowly android scum, if I got one of these it would be very hard for me not to give the person a hard time for using this.
Tricky. Now all your friends must have Iphones else they are not invited to your birthday party.
It's like the green bubble - blue bubble thing.
It's like the green bubble - blue bubble thing.
...or access it on the web through icloud.com/invites. iCloud+ subscribers can create invitations, and anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/introducing-apple-inv...
Not perfect, but something.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/introducing-apple-inv...
Not perfect, but something.
needs a desktop app
How deathly boring this all is.
On one hand it’s a good thing: so many invite services are coated in ads they deserve to fail. On the other, yet another service getting sucked up into the tech giant blob.
If open formats prevailed we would have expanded calendar invites so they just appear in your inbox like any other email for free. But alas, everyone has given up on that.
On one hand it’s a good thing: so many invite services are coated in ads they deserve to fail. On the other, yet another service getting sucked up into the tech giant blob.
If open formats prevailed we would have expanded calendar invites so they just appear in your inbox like any other email for free. But alas, everyone has given up on that.
I am with you, it's so stale and dull as an offering. No one would even use the calendar stuff even if it was an open format. The fact it isn't even that....
Apple's half-hearted approach to entering the dating market since every app essentially is now a dating app in disguise.
More importantly, the release announcement appears lost and betting on a different voting result. It reads weird, not the kind of societal benefits drop used over the last years.
The product launch seems hasty, somewhat not considering the fact that Trump got elected and went full reversal on DEI.
The press feature before Google+ aka Apple Invites was around a special interest topic: https://www.apple.com/ne/newsroom/2025/01/apple-introduces-t...
In contrast, the latest release marks a sharp departure. It is almost clean of pride-/woke-related references: https://www.apple.com/ne/newsroom/search/?q=lgbtq
Thoughts?
More importantly, the release announcement appears lost and betting on a different voting result. It reads weird, not the kind of societal benefits drop used over the last years.
The product launch seems hasty, somewhat not considering the fact that Trump got elected and went full reversal on DEI.
The press feature before Google+ aka Apple Invites was around a special interest topic: https://www.apple.com/ne/newsroom/2025/01/apple-introduces-t...
In contrast, the latest release marks a sharp departure. It is almost clean of pride-/woke-related references: https://www.apple.com/ne/newsroom/search/?q=lgbtq
Thoughts?
just send a .ics bro @apple
[deleted]
[deleted]
What a great time to live in, where the three major OS ecosystems are so large that they can avoid collaborating with each other over topics that affects all of them and still reach critical mass in utilization. /s
I can't imagine something basic like a common Email specification (or Wi-Fi) to ever happen in this industry again...
I can't imagine something basic like a common Email specification (or Wi-Fi) to ever happen in this industry again...
Hallmark cards as an app.
Silicon valley is entirely out of ideas.
Silicon valley is entirely out of ideas.
And how does it work for people who aren't indoctrinated by Apple? Are you even allowed to invite them or is it verboten?
ctrl-f "android", expected result
"anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device." It's in the 1st paragraph.
RIP Partiful
Well, Partiful is free, available on Android, and doesn’t require an iPhone or iCloud+ subscription to use. In contrast, this seems more exclusive. For now, Partiful lives to fight another day.
Hoping they can figure out a funding model before this space becomes very crowded with many people ditching Facebook.
And the merch store is funding multiple developers? Zero chance they’re currently making a profit from that.
And also doesn’t make enough money to be sustainable…
[deleted]
CIA's top project thus far
I hope this doesn't take off at all as it would be a net-negative for everyone involved.
The whole "app for events" experience is a complete piece of crap with the exception of lu.ma perhaps.
"Oh you're not an Apple user, whoops you can't RSVP" is a giant step towards enshittifying them even more.
The whole "app for events" experience is a complete piece of crap with the exception of lu.ma perhaps.
"Oh you're not an Apple user, whoops you can't RSVP" is a giant step towards enshittifying them even more.
Anyone can rsvp.
Too bad I need to know real people to use this, apple's out here assuming we have social lives
So since RCS is now here, Apple needed a new way to force people into buying iPhones by direct social pressure from peers.
(In the US)
(In the US)
From the FAQ¹:
> Do invitees need to have an Apple device with the app to attend an event?
> Apple Invites is for everyone. Guests don’t need the app, an Apple device, or an account to RSVP to an event.
¹ www.icloud.com/invites
> Do invitees need to have an Apple device with the app to attend an event?
> Apple Invites is for everyone. Guests don’t need the app, an Apple device, or an account to RSVP to an event.
¹ www.icloud.com/invites
Can't wait to see this thread in 60 minutes when the Apple marketers/astroturfers pick a positive organic comment and upvote it to the roof.
Or maybe people are just excited that there’s something new in this space that’s not Facebook Events?
Do we get to deploy a litmus test now to discern between simple excitement or fetid fanboyism? Not to mention unpaid shilling which is just sad and utterly demoralising. I mean at least get paid (disc: I don't mean you directly and personally).
Wrong thread?
Look on the bright side!
You could just as easily see the anti-Apple professional influence campaigns astroturf this thread by upvoting negative organic comments!
Am I right!?!?!?!
You could just as easily see the anti-Apple professional influence campaigns astroturf this thread by upvoting negative organic comments!
Am I right!?!?!?!
When I did this almost 2 years ago with Midjourney, people came at me and started harassing me. It was just a party invite but people hated that I used AI. I guess I just needed to wait until the gatekeepers or a rich white man to do it for it to be socially acceptable. The pain from these AI luddites was real. I have strongly negative feelings for how Big Tech manipulated everyone into attacking everyone who was doing AI but them. They made it seem like the only ones to protect us from AI was them but the pain this caused didn't go away.
you probably released your thing right when anti-AI art started taking off online. Even though people generally dislike AI art now and see it as tacky, you have to remember that Apple can do no wrong. So when they use AI image generation as a gimmick, no one wants to embarrass themselves and be like the next ballmer saying that the iphone won't take off.
Same goes for Apple's moves in the VR space: no one wants to come out and say that it's a stupid idea, because weirder things have worked in the past. Airpods are a counterexample and were initially seen as gimmicky and overpriced, but are now everywhere.
I think it just goes to show that a lot of consumer tech depends on the company image and wider culture. Google glass was pretty much ahead of its time, but was killed due to terrible rep, even though thats exactly the type of thing people are trying to make now.
Same goes for Apple's moves in the VR space: no one wants to come out and say that it's a stupid idea, because weirder things have worked in the past. Airpods are a counterexample and were initially seen as gimmicky and overpriced, but are now everywhere.
I think it just goes to show that a lot of consumer tech depends on the company image and wider culture. Google glass was pretty much ahead of its time, but was killed due to terrible rep, even though thats exactly the type of thing people are trying to make now.
Sure seems like it would have been a fun party.
Wrong thread?
How is this the wrong thread? Apple Invites is exactly like what I was doing with Midjourney a GenAI image generator.
I had a hard time connecting your comment to an event booking app. But I guess you are talking about the Memoji integration?
Some of images in the link are AI generated. Some people instantly notice AI generated contents, some don't.
It seems to me that this realization is often accompanied by deep emotional negativity, regardless of opinions.
It seems to me that this realization is often accompanied by deep emotional negativity, regardless of opinions.
The article mentions in the future being able to use Apple Intelligence to create "splash artwork" for invites rather than just uploading a photo or using emoji/memoji backgrounds.
"Image Playground is built right into Apple Invites, giving users an easy way to generate original images that make their invitation even more unique."
I look forward to the aberrations this will inevitably produce.
I look forward to the aberrations this will inevitably produce.
[deleted]
> iCloud+ subscribers can create invitations, and anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.
Only paying customers are allowed to construct their digital social life, but at least they're allowed to invite those filthy Android users!
Only paying customers are allowed to construct their digital social life, but at least they're allowed to invite those filthy Android users!
The transition of the major social networks over the last 10-15 years -- from being a space for friends to interact to being a space to consume content produced by "unconnected" entities like influencers -- has created a huge opening for someone to claim the friends and family network. There is no one better positioned (at least in the U.S. where iPhones are the majority handset) than Apple.