Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Apple Invites
731–740 of 956 posts
Re: Apple Invites
#732Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Re: Apple Invites
#733Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Apple Invites
#734Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the future they can change the approach too and both remove and restrict features Unlike a lot of product categories... I don't really see a strong lock-in factor here? 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…
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.
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.
Re: Apple Invites
#735Brilliant move. 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.
I'd argue WhatsApp is better positioned (globally).
Re: Apple Invites
#736Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 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.
Re: Apple Invites
#737Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.”
Re: Apple Invites
#738Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It’s not as if SMS is e2e encrypted right? Is RCS worse in that dimension in some way?
RCS is supported by Apple for quite some time now, though?
Re: Apple Invites
#739What's wrong with "create a Whatsapp group and invite all your friends there, and if they don't care they just mute/leave"?
WhatsApp actually (quietly) launched their own simple event RSVP feature last year: https://faq.whatsapp.com/3313983622238973/
Re: Apple Invites
#740Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Still valid for: 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/ These are the things people use around here to organise events. Four of those require a persistent account and an app, three of those are Meta for which I'm the loner yelling that I won't touch them with a 10 yard pole and a hazmat suit.…
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.