Apple Invites • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Invites

#751

Post by satvikpendem » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:09 AM UTC

sbuk wrote: post #749

satvikpendem wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Apple Invites

#752

Post by sbuk » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:12 AM UTC

thayne wrote: post #713

JohnBooty wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 extensi…

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.

Re: Apple Invites

#753

Post by frizlab » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:16 AM UTC

dismalaf wrote: post #192

frizlab wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Apple Invites

#754

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:19 AM UTC

minton wrote: post #660

somethingsidont wrote: post #600

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.”

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.)

Re: Apple Invites

#755

Post by nielsbot » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:21 AM UTC

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#

Re: Apple Invites

#756

Post by tonyhart7 » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:24 AM UTC

shwouchk wrote: post #657

tonyhart7 wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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

Re: Apple Invites

#757

Post by sbuk » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:26 AM UTC

addandsubtract wrote: post #561

lordofgibbons wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don't even need an app for Facebook or Instagram.

You don't even need an app for Invites.

Re: Apple Invites

#758

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:40 AM UTC

lloeki wrote: post #724

viraptor wrote: post #688

Earlier 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.…

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".

Re: Apple Invites

#759

Post by ascorbic » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:42 AM UTC

lloeki wrote: post #724

viraptor wrote: post #688

Earlier 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.…

None of those require buying hundreds of dollars worth of hardware

Re: Apple Invites

#760

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Feb 05, 2025, 8:43 AM UTC

gf000 wrote: post #734

viraptor wrote: post #688

Earlier 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.

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.

> 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.