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

891–900 of 956 posts

Re: Apple Invites

#891

Post by JohnBooty »

viraptor wrote: post #688
JohnBooty wrote: post #665

Earlier 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.

    But now you also need to convince a random person that they should switch,
This seems logically and factually untrue based on what Apple has stated.

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."
They don't need to buy an Apple device or create an account. (I would assume that they get a text message with some sort of unique individual URL, and from there they can respond to or view the invite)

So I do not follow when you claim that I would need to convince all my friends to "switch." Can you elaborate?

Re: Apple Invites

#892

Post by JohnBooty »

pmontra wrote: post #802
lloeki wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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…

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...

    "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 what's objectionable about this?

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?

Re: Apple Invites

#893

Post by shwouchk »

tonyhart7 wrote: post #756
shwouchk wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Re: Apple Invites

#895

Post by JohnBooty »

ascorbic wrote: post #767
JohnBooty wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

> 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 o…

    If the iMessage ptotocol is so great (I don't know enough about it to say),
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.

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.
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.

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.

Re: Apple Invites

#896

Post by mikeyouse »

StressedDev wrote: post #683
mikeyouse wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Apple Invites

#897

Post by [deleted] »

lmm wrote: post #552
yumraj wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Apple Invites

#898

Post by nozzlegear »

alt227 wrote: post #857
nozzlegear wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Why is that pointless?

Re: Apple Invites

#899

Post by ascorbic »

JohnBooty wrote: post #895
ascorbic wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

If the iMessage ptotocol is so great (I don't know enough about it to say), 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. I would hope that anybody on HN considers that rather important. Silicon Valley and engineers in general have really fucking changed if ha…

> 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.

Re: Apple Invites

#900

Post by GiorgioG »

aidenn0 wrote: post #883
GiorgioG wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paranoia is real.

Almost weekly I have someone annoyed at me because I don't have an iPhone, so they can't AirDrop or iMessage or FaceTime me.

Interesting, I've never gotten annoyed by my Android-loving friends/family. Even when I tried switching to Android nobody gave me static.
Post reply on HN