Most active commenters
  • joshuamorton(5)

←back to thread

Apple Invites

(www.apple.com)
651 points openchampagne | 14 comments | 04 Feb 25 16:21 UTC | HN request time: 1.905s | source | bottom
Show context
maratc ◴[04 Feb 25 16:48 UTC] No.42934917[source]▶
It's always nice to see some first-party apps from Apple[0], but historically the "iPhone-only social networking" hasn't been very successful — iTunes Ping or Game Center haven't been a huge hit, while group messaging in iMessage has only gained some traction within the US and virtually non-existent almost everywhere else.

---

[0] One can even say "first first-party party app" in this case :)

replies(6): >>42934960 #>>42934980 #>>42935032 #>>42935104 #>>42938478 #>>42938822 #
Jeremy1026 ◴[04 Feb 25 16:51 UTC] No.42934980[source]▶
Fortunately you don't need everyone to be on iOS to reply. So you can send your Android using friends invited and they'll just get a weblink.
replies(4): >>42935051 #>>42935140 #>>42935375 #>>42935658 #
ASalazarMX ◴[04 Feb 25 17:30 UTC] No.42935658[source]▶
Unfortunately you need an iPhone to create the invite, or contribute anything else than a reply. They have to know their uncoolness is tolerated but not welcomed in the walled garden.
replies(3): >>42936953 #>>42938852 #>>42942430 #
1. r00fus ◴[04 Feb 25 18:58 UTC] No.42936953[source]▶
Mission Accomplished. iOS is a significantly large enough market that it will have some success for those looking to replace FB/evite.

You can say the same thing about FB/Whatsapp or any other social network - you have to be in-network to get the invite even.

Looking forward to testing this out for some events.

replies(2): >>42938573 #>>42938794 #
2. Synaesthesia ◴[04 Feb 25 20:59 UTC] No.42938573[source]▶
In the US yeah it is. In the rest of the world, not so much.
replies(1): >>42938831 #
3. joshuamorton ◴[04 Feb 25 21:12 UTC] No.42938794[source]▶
Most social networks don't have a $5-600 buy-in cost though.
replies(3): >>42939090 #>>42939174 #>>42940672 #
4. criddell ◴[04 Feb 25 21:15 UTC] No.42938831[source]▶
The US market is probably big enough to make the service a success. Sometimes you don't need to be the biggest to be good enough.
5. baggachipz ◴[04 Feb 25 21:31 UTC] No.42939090[source]▶
I sure wish they did. It would reduce the number of bots to nearly zero.
6. in_cahoots ◴[04 Feb 25 21:37 UTC] No.42939174[source]▶
I just spent $70 to send out birthday party invites to 40 parents on Evite. The free version sends an invite with ads, links to Amazon, and other tacky stuff. As an iPhone user with two kids switching to iCloud+ is cheaper than the alternatives. And I think many other parents will agree.
replies(1): >>42939358 #
7. joshuamorton ◴[04 Feb 25 21:50 UTC] No.42939358{3}[source]▶
...Why?

The competition I see for this is partiful (https://partiful.com/), which is free, handles invites for folks without accounts (I don't have one, I am invited to parties via text message), and is clearly the inspiration/competition apples for this app given the visual similarities.

replies(2): >>42939927 #>>42940980 #
8. briandear ◴[04 Feb 25 22:28 UTC] No.42939927{4}[source]▶
Free how? Who pays? Just benevolence?
9. crazygringo ◴[04 Feb 25 23:20 UTC] No.42940672[source]▶
The cheapest iCloud+ plan is $0.99/mo., which a lot of people are already on just for backup of photos and videos.
replies(1): >>42943806 #
10. in_cahoots ◴[04 Feb 25 23:42 UTC] No.42940980{4}[source]▶
Simple: I’ve never heard of it until this thread. I get probably 20 birthday party invites a year from Silicon Valley-type families, and they are all using Evite or Paperless Post. There was a time when I would have looked for alternatives or rolled my own solution, but living busy toddler life means I pick my battles and grumble about it on Hacker News :)

I think they both used to be cheaper, but now they’re focused on profits. Same as Partiful will do eventually.

replies(1): >>42941398 #
11. joshuamorton ◴[05 Feb 25 00:16 UTC] No.42941398{5}[source]▶
Amusingly, I've never heard of either of those. Partiful is much more oriented towards less "professional" parties, it's replacing what was the facebook event segment of a lot of my social circle event organizing.

I'd be pretty peeved to spend any money on such a service, and many of my friends simply couldn't.

12. joshuamorton ◴[05 Feb 25 04:28 UTC] No.42943806{3}[source]▶
I'm talking about the phone. You can't access this app without an iPhone.
replies(1): >>42945244 #
13. maratc ◴[05 Feb 25 07:42 UTC] No.42945244{4}[source]▶
Your argument is the same as “Walmart has a $25,000 entry ticket because you can’t access Walmart without a car.”
replies(1): >>42945794 #
14. joshuamorton ◴[05 Feb 25 08:48 UTC] No.42945794{5}[source]▶
There are lots of ways to buy things from walmart without $25,000.

But to consider this more realistically: yes, one of the reasons I don't shop at walmart is because I don't own a car, and the closes Walmart to me is over 2 hours away on public transit, whereas the closest target is 15 minutes away, and amazon doesn't require me to leave my house.

Walmart is fine with that because me not shopping there doesn't make the store less attractive to others, but with social media it does. Me not using the iphone-only social media because it is behind a $500 or $1000 paywall makes it less useful for other people, especially when there are free alternatives around.