←back to thread

Apple Invites

(www.apple.com)
651 points openchampagne | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.003s | source
Show context
lordofgibbons ◴[] No.42939855[source]
I really hope this fails.

Apple will use it's dominant position to create lock in like how they did with iMessage instead of cooperating with other platforms on a common standard.

Oder friends and family are surprised when they want to video call over Facetime and find it hard to believe other people's phones don't have Apple apps.

replies(26): >>42939966 #>>42940020 #>>42940243 #>>42940281 #>>42940379 #>>42940471 #>>42940515 #>>42940596 #>>42941069 #>>42941479 #>>42941630 #>>42941758 #>>42942136 #>>42942213 #>>42942456 #>>42942901 #>>42942937 #>>42943397 #>>42943414 #>>42943895 #>>42944072 #>>42944475 #>>42944937 #>>42944944 #>>42947436 #>>42948271 #
basisword ◴[] No.42941630[source]
Just a tip but sometimes it’s good to read the article before commenting.

The app allows iPhone users to create an event. Anybody on any device or browser can RSVP. The event can be shared as a link. Making an event invite app that only works for users on one platform would be pointless.

Also - non-Apple users have been able to join FaceTime calls via. A link for several years.

replies(9): >>42941671 #>>42942433 #>>42942697 #>>42943116 #>>42943706 #>>42943841 #>>42944579 #>>42945035 #>>42946797 #
esolyt ◴[] No.42943706[source]
There is no indication they haven't read the article.

This product, much like iMessage and others, provides an inferior experience to non-Apple users. It aims to make other devices and operating systems look less capable and cheap.

iMessage also partially works with other phones. This doesn't change the fact that its intention is to create a lock-in effect, as evidenced by internal Apple emails.

replies(3): >>42944388 #>>42945127 #>>42946677 #
adrr ◴[] No.42944388[source]
How so? It just sends a link either in a message or email. Acceptance is done via a web page. How do online invitations ensure vendor lock in? What will prevent me from using another online invite system in the future? I’ve used a bunch in past like evite, paperless post and the cost to switch is nothing.
replies(2): >>42944727 #>>42944943 #
ejoso ◴[] No.42944727{3}[source]
It is a degraded experience. Not as smooth as being on iOS. It’s a common playbook used by Apple (as well as MS and others) in an attempt to get and retain users.
replies(1): >>42944982 #
1. mjamil ◴[] No.42944982{4}[source]
Why would the stewards of a walled garden want other gardens (walled or otherwise) be as good as theirs? What moral or economic imperative exists for such a belief?

Why is that bad?

replies(1): >>42945215 #
2. TeMPOraL ◴[] No.42945215[source]
> Why would the stewards of a walled garden want other gardens (walled or otherwise) be as good as theirs? What moral (...) imperative exists for such a belief?

Not being an asshole? It's normal instinct unless one's brain has been thoroughly eaten by competitiveness.

> Why is that bad?

Because in this, Apple is attacking the commons. They're trying to provide an alternative to normal invite system - one that's been established and battle-tested over decades, one that works okay-ish across any device, real or virtual, on any platform, and one that people know how to use. An alternative that gives some bells and whistles exclusively to the Apple users, and perhaps even is more ergonomic in practice. An alternative that overlaps with the commons just enough to perhaps get the significant chunk of Apple-first userbase to switch over, but purposefully doesn't overlap enough to work well for non-Apple users (as well as professional users).

Take commons, drive a wedge down the side, use it as lever for your massive userbase to push everyone else off it. Screw everyone else. Hell, even screw your own users too for having Android users (or Windows or Linux desktop users!) among family and friends. The next generation of users should remember that thou shalt only befriend and marry people from within your corporate community.

replies(1): >>42948579 #
3. krger ◴[] No.42948579[source]
>They're trying to provide an alternative to normal invite system - one that's been established and battle-tested over decades, one that works okay-ish across any device, real or virtual, on any platform, and one that people know how to use.

And if the people who try Invites discover that it isn't, in fact, superior to this "normal invite system"—whatever you believe it to be—that you claim is "established and battle-tested," they won't continue using it and will go back to what they were doing before.

>An alternative that gives some bells and whistles exclusively to the Apple users, and perhaps even is more ergonomic in practice.

Do you believe that all vendors should be forbidden from shipping any new application or feature that doesn't offer full interoperability and feature parity with everybody else or is that a limitation you believe should be applied only to Apple?