Most active commenters
  • EA-3167(4)
  • morsecodist(3)

←back to thread

Apple Invites

(www.apple.com)
651 points openchampagne | 32 comments | | HN request time: 2.502s | source | bottom
1. morsecodist ◴[] No.42934793[source]
Unfortunately, I have to hope this doesn't see widespread adoption. If this becomes the standard it will just add to already existing social pressure to get an iPhone in the US.
replies(6): >>42934854 #>>42934872 #>>42934875 #>>42934958 #>>42935040 #>>42935362 #
2. xattt ◴[] No.42934854[source]
That’s the point: get an iPhone or be left out. But don’t worry, there will be a web version…
3. kingnothing ◴[] No.42934872[source]
> anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.
4. pulisse ◴[] No.42934875[source]
> anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device.
replies(3): >>42934906 #>>42934976 #>>42935061 #
5. frereubu ◴[] No.42934906[source]
But no-one without an Apple Account can create them - you can only respond to Apple-having friends. There is social pressure in that too.
replies(5): >>42934938 #>>42934951 #>>42935031 #>>42935050 #>>42938607 #
6. EA-3167 ◴[] No.42934938{3}[source]
A company creating a useful tool that encourages people to buy their product is incredibly boring, typical, and not at all controversial until it's Apple doing it.
replies(2): >>42934974 #>>42937479 #
7. ◴[] No.42934951{3}[source]
8. ilrwbwrkhv ◴[] No.42934958[source]
Social pressures aren't real. I have never ever had a facebook account, instagram account, a linkedin account, an iphone or any other things people fall for.
9. unethical_ban ◴[] No.42934974{4}[source]
It may have something to do with the duopolistic nature of mobile phones and the absolute size and dominance of Apple.
replies(1): >>42935515 #
10. cosmotic ◴[] No.42934976[source]
Non-Apple users cant contribute to the playlist. No mention on the impact to the shared photo album. If its just a normal shared Photos.app album, non-apple users are locked out there, too.
replies(1): >>42937472 #
11. duxup ◴[] No.42935031{3}[source]
If I'm inviting someone and they RSVP, that transaction is successful and done to me.

If they use some other system (and people do) I'll respond via that system.

12. ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.42935040[source]
Im literally sick over the thought of the increased social pressure
replies(2): >>42935408 #>>42935838 #
13. ◴[] No.42935050{3}[source]
14. morsecodist ◴[] No.42935061[source]
I think that's preferable to them being totally unable to RSVP but you're still going to be the friend that can't make the invite. It's comparable to iMessage. You can still talk to Android users but it's a notably worse experience.
15. sentientslug ◴[] No.42935362[source]
To me this argument makes no sense. Apple should never introduce any new features or services to their ecosystem because it might increase “social pressure” to get an iPhone?
replies(2): >>42936196 #>>42941776 #
16. xcrjm ◴[] No.42935408[source]
Your friends joking with you to get an iPhone is making you sick?
17. EA-3167 ◴[] No.42935515{5}[source]
I suspect it has a lot more to do with the concentration of mobile devs and FOSS types here, along with people who really can't understand that not everyone wants their phone to be something other than "Working out of the box."
replies(1): >>42939353 #
18. dlachausse ◴[] No.42935838[source]
I mean this completely seriously and as a concerned internet stranger...if that is literally true for you, please go seek mental health services right now. That's not normal or healthy.

All my social circles where we communicate over SMS/RCS group text chats consist of a little gentle ribbing about "those darn green bubble people" and that's about the extent of it. The Android users occasionally respond in kind by showing off some cool new feature that Samsung or Google came up with that Apple hasn't copied yet and everybody laughs it all off.

19. morsecodist ◴[] No.42936196[source]
I would say the more a given app/feature has network effects the more invested I am in it being cross-platform. For example, iMessage and Facetime are highly social. Apple was resistant to adopting the RCS protocol for iMessage, though they eventually caved and now the experience of texting between iPhones and Androids is better for both parties so it seems preferable to me.

Meanwhile, we take it for granted that there is a protocol for audio calls and text messages but not for video calls. I would like to more easily video call people with iPhones, and doing so would be technically possible but I can't because Apple benefits from the network effect. If I were to get an iPhone it would not be because Apple did a better job at creating a video call feature, it will be because people I know have iPhones and I want to call them. This seems like it gives incumbents in the space a large advantage because they can compete on having a user base and not on quality.

Ironically, Apple itself developed such a protocol for events and RSVPs (ICS), at a time when they didn't have market dominance. This caught on and it is great. I can make a calendar event in Google Calendar, Outlook, or Apple Calendar and invite anyone from any of those platforms. They can RSVP and I can track their RSVPs and they can also create events in their systems and invite me. This is the kind of thing I like to encourage where possible.

replies(1): >>42938468 #
20. nickthegreek ◴[] No.42937472{3}[source]
Non Apple Music users cant contribute. There are currently around 93 million Apple Music subscribers.
21. nickthegreek ◴[] No.42937479{4}[source]
Im just excited about a possible alternative to FB for this kinda stuff.
22. WorldMaker ◴[] No.42938468{3}[source]
Apple Invites does provide ICS files for the events. (In the web version when not logged in to an Apple Account, after RSVPing.)

Technically vCal/iCal/ICS (whichever name you prefer) doesn't actually support RSVPs. It isn't in the standards documents. In ancient Microsoft nomenclature that pseudo-standard (de facto standard) for RSVPs is the "Schedule+ protocol" named after an ancient dead predecessor to Outlook's Calendar which originated it. I don't know what Google or Apple call it, and it is such a weird dance of (usually) auto-deleted email messages, so certainly has room for improvement as a protocol.

It would be neat to encourage a new "modern" standard there. Seems like something more web-based (JSON REST API?) than email-based might be a more "natural" API today. (Maybe Apple Invite can help lead the way, I don't know if that's on their TODO list.)

replies(1): >>42950213 #
23. WorldMaker ◴[] No.42938607{3}[source]
You need a Google Account to use Google Calendar.

Anyone can have an Apple Account whether or not they own an Apple Device.

In this case, too, you can create Invites on icloud.com on non-Apple devices. Including the webpage seems nicely responsive and can probably make them in an Android Chrome tab if you wanted.

The only remaining obstacle is that it isn't a free feature of an Apple Account, but requires an iCloud+ subscription. But that's useful for Apple Music and Apple TV+ and other products, too, many of which work just fine on non-Apple devices as well.

replies(2): >>42938931 #>>42945082 #
24. frereubu ◴[] No.42938931{4}[source]
Fair points.
25. freedomben ◴[] No.42939353{6}[source]
Ah yes the classic false dichotomy, that it either has to be closed/proprietary/locked down and "just works" or it can be open but unusable. In reality the two are completely orthogonal. There's nothing magical about publishing the source that suddenly changes the code or the product and breaks it. If Apple open sourced ever line of code they have tonight, would iPhones suddenly stop working?
replies(1): >>42939882 #
26. EA-3167 ◴[] No.42939882{7}[source]
So, what's stopping you from becoming Apple's competition? If a significant number of people crave your idea of FOSS and you have ideas to make a superior product, I'm sure the market will reward you.
replies(1): >>42946846 #
27. bhelkey ◴[] No.42941776[source]
Antitrust laws to prevent companies from abusing their market position.

The US Department of Justice is currently suing Apple for violating those antitrust laws [1]

[1] https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-mono...

28. arvinsim ◴[] No.42945082{4}[source]
Google account is still free while iCloud+ subscription is not.

That's a big difference.

29. fsflover ◴[] No.42946846{8}[source]
Did you ever see any Linux laptop in a store? They do have some market share but never existed to the ordinary people.

Also, GNU/Linux phones exist (Librem 5 is my daily driver). However without Apple's budgets, you can't create the same smooth experience. You just can't compete with the duopoly.

replies(1): >>42950866 #
30. gsnedders ◴[] No.42950213{4}[source]
iTIP (RFC 5546) / iMIP (RFC 6047) are a standard for sending and responding to calendar invites, implemented on top of email.

Certainly some implementations are pretty poor, but in theory this is all standardised.

31. EA-3167 ◴[] No.42950866{9}[source]
So what you're saying is that alternatives do exist, but they aren't popular... that doesn't sound like a "duopoly" exists, it just sounds like Android and Apple cover the needs of the vast majority of people. I'm sure it's difficult to be part of a niche, but that doesn't mean that there's some conspiracy against you.
replies(1): >>42952107 #
32. fsflover ◴[] No.42952107{10}[source]
> I'm sure it's difficult to be part of a niche, but that doesn't mean that there's some conspiracy against you.

Yes, it does: https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/. Purism tried to created their own smartphone not relying on Apple and Google and it was almost impossible to find the necessary chips. Nobody wanted to share the schematics or open the drivers. People are just locked-in into the duopoly. It's impossible to use popular apps without it, like Whatsapp or even Signal (!).