Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Invites

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 956 posts

Re: Apple Invites

#451

Post by aucisson_masque »

makeitdouble wrote: post #397
briandear wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 ??

Re: Apple Invites

#452

Post by Legion »

nonchalantsui wrote: post #289
PaulHoule wrote: post #254

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…

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 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.

Re: Apple Invites

#453

Post by NoPicklez »

canucker2016 wrote: post #413
lordofgibbons wrote: post #362

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.

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…

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.

Re: Apple Invites

#454

Post by crazygringo »

talldayo wrote: post #359
canucker2016 wrote: post #357

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…

> Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription. 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.

Re: Apple Invites

#455

Post by bombcar »

echoangle wrote: post #396
talldayo wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription. I really wonder what the uptake is on iCloud+ subscriptions.

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.)

Re: Apple Invites

#456

Post by zie »

NoPicklez wrote: post #453
canucker2016 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Re: Apple Invites

#457

Post by caycep »

lordofgibbons wrote: post #362

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.

its not like I'm feeling super free of lock in when I'm using FB invites, partiful, or evite.

Re: Apple Invites

#458

Post by emchammer »

canucker2016 wrote: post #413
lordofgibbons wrote: post #362

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.

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…

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.

Re: Apple Invites

#459

Post by bombcar »

boringg wrote: post #238
happyopossum wrote: post #222

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

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).

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.

Re: Apple Invites

#460

Post by Auracle »

ghaff wrote: post #322
stevage wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No switch flipping needed, if you send a text to another iPhone it’ll just do an iMessage instead.
Post reply on HN