Most active commenters
  • highwaylights(4)
  • Schiendelman(3)
  • account42(3)

←back to thread

Apple Invites

(www.apple.com)
651 points openchampagne | 36 comments | | HN request time: 0.598s | source | bottom
Show context
happyopossum ◴[] No.42938792[source]
My wife is in a position (board chair for a co-op) that results in her sending out a lot of invites to events. Evite has kinda been the go-to in her social/co-op group for ages, but man it suuuuuuucks these days. Ads everywhere, annoying patterns, and lacks a bunch of nice features that this seems to have.

Very happy to see this

replies(8): >>42938905 #>>42939482 #>>42939573 #>>42940233 #>>42942723 #>>42943533 #>>42945924 #>>42950529 #
1. nostromo ◴[] No.42939482[source]
I organize a lot of events for a rugby team, and our events are now all on Partiful.

Maybe it'll go downhill like Evite and Facebook Events - but for now it's quite good.

replies(2): >>42939561 #>>42948653 #
2. svnt ◴[] No.42939561[source]
How is it funded? That is your answer.
replies(2): >>42939650 #>>42939684 #
3. echelon ◴[] No.42939650[source]
Not everything is in the position or can afford to transitionally tax the whole of the internet itself like big tech.

You're paying for Apple Invites whether you realize it or not. There's immense value in making their platform more sticky.

In a few years you'll read articles about uncool Android kids not getting invited to parties. And that's your answer.

One of these behaviors is way more insidious.

replies(6): >>42939996 #>>42939997 #>>42940545 #>>42940833 #>>42942107 #>>42950549 #
4. mjamesaustin ◴[] No.42939684[source]
Currently Partiful doesn't generate revenue, which is evidence for its quality. As soon as the purse strings get attached, it'll be time to get out. But for now, it's an excellent service.
replies(2): >>42940852 #>>42942730 #
5. ToucanLoucan ◴[] No.42939996{3}[source]
> You're paying for Apple Invites whether you realize it or not. There's immense value in making their platform more sticky.

I'm not stuck to Apple's platform, I'm quite happy here. Apple services aren't drenched in ads end to end. Apple's services aren't constantly asking for nickels and dimes; it's one charge, every month, for a buffet of services that are regularly added to and actually improved, making them distinct from... fuck, the rest of the Internet basically, which seems to boil down to a revolving door of stupidly named services backed by VC funding that get popular, quickly, because they don't charge anything and aren't drenched in ads, and then slowly they add the ads, but there's an ad free tier for not much money, oh but now there's ads in that tier, which is also more expensive, and then the service shuts down because they didn't hit 60 billion users before their runway ran out, but there's this new service...

And while I'm certain they do some spying and whatnot to facilitate targeted ads, they at least pay lip service to my privacy, and my experiences developing stuff for their hardware tells me that at least there is a whiff of security to their hardware. There are a lot of things as a developer I'm straight up not allowed to do.

The "insidiousness" of Apple's plan so far seems to be, largely, making damn good products that people want to use, and backing them up with cloud services that work well. I wish more tech firms took that approach to be totally honest.

replies(1): >>42950587 #
6. briandear ◴[] No.42939997{3}[source]
I don’t want the uncool Android kids at my parties. Because then I have to listen to them droning on about the kids of things Android people drone on about.
replies(1): >>42940740 #
7. jxdxbx ◴[] No.42940545{3}[source]
I mean, you can invite anyone. it’s not limited to apple device invitees.
replies(1): >>42950612 #
8. talldayo ◴[] No.42940740{4}[source]
Compared to all the cool stuff, like... checks the news ...Tim Cook's political backbone?
9. whstl ◴[] No.42940833{3}[source]
> You're paying for Apple Invites whether you realize it or not

I mean, it requires a paid iCloud account, so... yeah.

10. ryandrake ◴[] No.42940852{3}[source]
This tracks so well as an indicator, with many other products. As soon as the company starts making money, their product is going to become awful and it's time to find an alternative. Why can't tech escape this cycle?
replies(7): >>42941198 #>>42941578 #>>42942095 #>>42943386 #>>42944055 #>>42951325 #>>42956337 #
11. foundart ◴[] No.42941198{4}[source]
Because there’s always someone willing to lose money by offering a free product without the undesirable stuff in the hope that they can acquire customers to mine for cash later
12. tyre ◴[] No.42941578{4}[source]
imo the most likely scenario is that they never charge and are acquired by Facebook.

In exchange, FB gets access into your offline graph: people you interact IRL but not on social media. They can approximate relationships through Plus 1 invites.

Work in an instagram component for sharing photos / albums / reels from an event. You’re pumping right back into the FOMOmachine.

13. Schiendelman ◴[] No.42942095{4}[source]
It has. Apple escaped this cycle. Their software is great. Instead of you being the product, you buy the product. People then just complain the product is expensive. On this website, I roll my eyes.
replies(3): >>42943901 #>>42943947 #>>42949701 #
14. dvngnt_ ◴[] No.42942107{3}[source]
This already happens. My adult friend group has to create a separate group chat for me and another friends and we get the invite after the main group.

partiful was actually a decent solution but they just got sherlocked

15. culi ◴[] No.42942730{3}[source]
Sounds like Partiful's time has come before its even had a chance to try to sustain itself. It probably doesn't even have the resources to fight apple on this
16. mattmaroon ◴[] No.42943386{4}[source]
I mean it does escape the cycle, lots of products charge money and aren't awful. The ones that are awful are mostly the ones people don't pay for, or things that use the freemium business model.

Most things that just charge a subscription are good and get better.

replies(1): >>42960674 #
17. lostlogin ◴[] No.42943901{5}[source]
I want nice things, zero cost and complete privacy without adverts. Why is this so hard?

/s

replies(1): >>42960662 #
18. StressedDev ◴[] No.42943947{5}[source]
Agreed - If you want good products, you should support the people who create them. That means paying. If you want a privacy destroying enshitified product, keep using "free" products.
replies(1): >>42949836 #
19. maeil ◴[] No.42944055{4}[source]
The key here is VC-backed. The enshittification rate of bootstrapped products (especially solo or small team) is magnitudes lower. Ironic thing to say while on YC's message board, but there you have it.

Nowadays when I'm looking for a new software product or service with a good number of options, first thing I do is check how they're funded.

Funny thing is that teams are catching on to this! Very recently I've seen two products have a separate "Are you VC backed?" heading in their landing FAQ (both answered with "no"). I can see this becoming a trend - if I were to create a product, I'd do the same.

replies(1): >>42965624 #
20. Aromasin ◴[] No.42948653[source]
Our club uses Spond for invites. I'm not sure what the financial side of it looks like, but it's been great for coordinating training/games/socials.
21. rchaud ◴[] No.42949701{5}[source]
Apple stuff has always been expensive, and never once has Apple justified raising the price because they're 'privacy friendly'.

Apple has a multi-billion dollar ads business. You are still the product, even if the execution isn't as brazenly anti-consumer as Google and Facebook.

replies(1): >>42950394 #
22. bluSCALE4 ◴[] No.42949836{6}[source]
This isn't so simple. I love a lot of apps but I'm not willing to pay a monthly or yearly sub. I'll give you $5-$250 but I won't give you $5 a month.
replies(1): >>42958073 #
23. Our_Benefactors ◴[] No.42950394{6}[source]
> never once has Apple justified raising the price because they're 'privacy friendly'.

No, but they have made privacy a key selling point of their platform and communicated that clearly to customers.

Just because they never have formally stated “oh and by the way this increases the price of our products by X/unit”, doesn’t mean that feature isn’t included in the cost.

24. highwaylights ◴[] No.42950549{3}[source]
This already happens with green bubbles, it's not new.
25. highwaylights ◴[] No.42950587{4}[source]
You're totally missing the point of parent. The cost is in how insidiously this behavior ostracizes Android owners over time, just like they've done for years with blue/green bubbles.

I'm an Apple user, and it serves me well, but it absolutely uses really sinister dark patterns to separate me from contacts in the Android world.

replies(1): >>42950831 #
26. highwaylights ◴[] No.42950612{4}[source]
Yeah, but like, with the crappiest possible version of this service that is a massive downgrade for them from something like partiful.
27. ToucanLoucan ◴[] No.42950831{5}[source]
I have never gotten the blue green ostacization. It's a color. It denotes whether you're using iMessage or SMS (now the new standard, RCS I think).

Like I've heard of teenagers giving each other shit for it, I have never ever once in my life, myself or any person I've worked or been friends with, gives it a second thought. And if I actually heard someone attempting to make this into a thing I would judge them incredibly harshly.

replies(1): >>42954814 #
28. aidenn0 ◴[] No.42951325{4}[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
29. highwaylights ◴[] No.42954814{6}[source]
That’s entirely the point though.

I don’t mind it at all, nor would I care, but it others people that don’t have an iPhone (especially teenagers), and they also suggest this in their explanation (that a green bubble means the chat is no longer encrypted, even though WhatsApp and RCS exist).

It’s a dark pattern that they’ve rightly been criticized for, but no-one has thus far cared enough to do something about it.

30. pseudocomposer ◴[] No.42956337{4}[source]
Because every way, say, the Partiful devs could ask for $3/mo for months you post parties (like Kagi’s new pricing) is gated by payment providers that will either take 30¢ of every dollar, be expensive to implement, or provide a bad experience for users.
31. Schiendelman ◴[] No.42958073{7}[source]
Well then you won't get maintenance or support. People need to eat long-term, not just once.
32. account42 ◴[] No.42960662{6}[source]
It's pretty easy actually - most open source software fits the bill. Quality software can be pretty cheap to make per user.

The only problem is services where hosting costs need to be paid somehow and network effects mean that for-profit competition will win the market even if the product is inevitably enshittified. Doesn't matter how good your open and community funded event platform is if Apple and Facebook can afford to shove their solution in front of everyone you want to interact with.

replies(1): >>42963792 #
33. account42 ◴[] No.42960674{5}[source]
More like most things that charge a subscription will eventually add ads and other anti-features because that's the only way to satisfy demands for infinite growth once the market has been exhausted.
34. Schiendelman ◴[] No.42963792{7}[source]
What open source software is a "nice thing"? We're talking about high quality user experience here. I don't think it's controversial to say that's vanishingly rare in OSS.
replies(1): >>42970683 #
35. gioazzi ◴[] No.42965624{5}[source]
Nice one, I'll add it to our Apple Invites, open source competitor readme: http://github.com/gruprsvp/grup
36. account42 ◴[] No.42970683{8}[source]
Actually it's proprietary software that's more likely to be full of anti-patterns and flows designed in the interest of the corporation rather than the user while advanced functionality is missing because it might confuse the lowest common denominator user. Looking flashy and retard-safe design does not make a high quality user experience.