←back to thread

Apple Invites

(www.apple.com)
651 points openchampagne | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.309s | 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 #
yapyap ◴[] No.42943116[source]
Tbf imessage also allows people to message non iOS users but apparently the ‘color of the bubble’ has been a big thing in the U.S. among youth.
replies(3): >>42943136 #>>42943172 #>>42943209 #
saintfire ◴[] No.42943209[source]
I think calling it just "color of the bubble" downplays the intentional degredation of chat quality for everyone in the chat in order to encourage exclusion, presumably to create FOMO. Incidentally FOMO is a very powerful among youth, but it's still a thing for any group in some capacity.

Not that I personally cared, as i see it as an Apple flaw, but in joining a work iMessage group I had people whining about image quality and whatever other features were disabled between iMessage users while I was present.

replies(2): >>42943298 #>>42944033 #
plandis ◴[] No.42943298[source]
The last I looked into this, iMessage offers end to end encryption and RCS doesn't by default. Apple (rightfully, IMO) refuses to use Googles non open source end to end encryption extension that also would require key exchange on Google owned servers.
replies(2): >>42943810 #>>42943977 #
thayne ◴[] No.42943977[source]
> RCS doesn't by default

That isn't exactly accurate. The standard doesn't have e2ee, but if you use google messages with RCS with other android phone it is end to end encrypted. But it uses a proprietary google extension to RCS. But I would be surprised if google wasn't willing to work with apple to get e2ee RCS working between iMessage and google Messages, but Apple has no interest in that.

replies(1): >>42944077 #
JohnBooty ◴[] No.42944077[source]
Just so I understand: it's bad for Apple to have a proprietary E2EE solution, but it's good for Google to have one, and additionally it's Apple's fault for not using Google's?
replies(1): >>42944695 #
thayne ◴[] No.42944695[source]
Standardized interoperable E2EE > Proprietary E2EE > client-to-server encryption > no encryption

It isn't as simple as "apple bad, google good". Apple/iOS having E2EE is good. Apple refusing to cooperate at all in making E2EE interoperable with non apple products is bad. Google/Android having E2EE is good, and better than the claim above that RCS doesn't have E2EE by default. The fact that it is a proprietary extension is bad, but they seem more willing to interoperate. That said, if the positions were reversed, I suspect Google would also be more resistant to interoperability.

replies(3): >>42945509 #>>42946165 #>>43079627 #
1. dwaite ◴[] No.42946165[source]
Google is not cooperating with anyone when it comes to their existing proprietary E2EE implementation. E2EE is available in Google's client only, able to be run on the Android devices Google certifies, when talking through Google's RCS server.

That is because the core of their security model is a centralized key server, outside of the rest of RCS, that acts as the source of truth for an account and its associated public keys.

That fails once you have accounts which are not being authoritatively managed by Google, e.g. an email address with multiple messaging services attached, or a phone number which may be managed by any number of third party RCS installations. That is a problem which is still being actively solved.