711–720 of 956 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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 wasn't the US though, yeah, but rather some american working for a foreign country's government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 servic…
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
Tend to agree. Hopefully Google will also offer their own alternative to this. (Free) Online invites just suck these days
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 e…
It literally says, “...anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.”
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.