The transition of the major social networks over the last 10-15 years -- from being a space for friends to interact to being a space to consume content produced by "unconnected" entities like influencers -- has created a huge opening for someone to claim the friends and family network. There is no one better positioned (at least in the U.S. where iPhones are the majority handset) than Apple.
I think Apple already has claimed the "friends and family network" via iMessage. Did Facebook go to a groups/influencer algorithm by choice or is it the result of IRL friend posters all moving to private chats once everyone got iPhones?
Everytime iMessage is mentioned, I do a double take because it is almost non existent here in Turkey. And from what I hear, seems like most Europeans do not use it too.
WhatsApp has like 99.9% market share here and I assume it is a lot bigger than anything else in the EU too.
I wonder why is that though. Everyone around me has an iPhone basically and I haven’t received a blue bubble in years. The messages app is not even on my home screen.
As I understand it, many Americans (and all iPhones?) had unlimited-SMS phone plans circa 2009. So the pay-per-message economic conditions that caused many Europeans, etc., to switch to WhatsApp back in the day didn't do anything in the USA.
Then when the same iPhone app seamlessly started sending iMessages (blue bubbles) to other iPhones rather than SMS (green bubbles), people just kept using that.
When Whatsapp launched, SMS still wasn't free, the exception being some carriers that offered "free" SMS to numbers of the same carrier if the sender was on a premium coverage plan. In sum, majority of the population was still paying $0,10-$0,20 despite already having data plans. So it was an easy win for WhatsApp.
>> So the pay-per-message economic conditions that caused many Europeans, etc., to switch to WhatsApp back in the day didn't do anything in the USA.
I see this listed as the reason often but I had unlimited SMS then too. In fact I remember visiting the US in 2009 and I was charged to send AND receive an SMS which was a shock.
I think the actual reason is that communication across borders in Europe is very common and those SMS's were not included in the unlimited plans as they were messages abroad. So they were subject to fees (usually high ones). I think this is the reason it was common - especially given how common it is for students to study 'abroad' in other European countries. There were a few competing apps for this at the time (Vibr I think was another but was more call focussed) but WhatsApp won in the end.
>> So the pay-per-message economic conditions that caused many Europeans, etc., to switch to WhatsApp back in the day
> I think the actual reason is that communication across borders in Europe is very common and those SMS's were not included in the unlimited plans as they were messages abroad. So they were subject to fees (usually high ones).
So, you completely agree with what you seem to be taking issue with.
Yepp, this is my theory too. When you live in a country with friends 2 hours away by car in a totally different country, paying extra for "long distance" is absurd when tools exist to communicate with no extra fees.
Viber is alive and well nowadays and is the dominant messaging app in quite a few geographies. Given that Facebook Messenger seems to also have about the same MAU as WhatsApp (and seems to be dominant in the US), I don't think you can say any one of those "won".
>> Viber is alive and well nowadays and is the dominant messaging app in quite a few geographies
Interesting! I haven't heard mention of Viber since around 2011. When I said WhatsApp 'won' I meant that wherever I have been in Europe WhatsApp seems to be in use by people and by businesses. It's almost accepted you'll have an account and used as an alternative to email/phone numbers. I understand global MAU may show a different reality and certain locales may still be dominated by other platforms.
Huawei and other Chinese phones are not banned in the EU. So you can get your hands on 100€ to 200€ smartphones which are more than enough for most people. Hence a lot less iPhones (but a ton more spywares).
That's only true if everyone in the group has an Apple phone, which has decreasing probability with every additional member. Excluding people from a conversation because they don't have the right brand of phone would be pretty antisocial.
Unfortunately it happens all the time in my friends circle, and it's for technical not anti-social reasons. Group texts that include Android users are so buggy that they tend to die out, whereas iMessage-only groups tend to be long lasting. For this reason we use WhatsApp for the core group chat, but there's still a ton of side-conversations and meme-ing in iMessage groups.
>> For this reason we use WhatsApp for the core group chat, but there's still a ton of side-conversations and meme-ing in iMessage groups.
I don't understand why you would use two chat systems when you know one is excluding some friends? Why not just centralise on WhatsApp which you're already using? Serious question. I can understand why switching is a big ask but when you're already using the multi-platform option part of the time switching back and forth seems unnecessary and inconvenient.
Because the majority of my communication is already in iMessage and I don't want to bother with another app. I also by default opt out of any Zuckerberg operations that I can, they get enough of my data without me having an account on any of their platforms as is.
In the USA, someone insisting on using an Android when everyone else in their social circle has an iPhone (and they do!) is what's seen as anti-social. No one wants to use the degraded green bubble SMS experience so they simply exclude the Android user and continue using blue bubble iMessage.
I have never ever seen this. If your "friends" treat you badly because of your phone choice, they are not really your friends. Also, iMessage is not that great. It's nice but it is not amazing like some people make it out to be.
I totally agree with you, but it's pretty obvious why this behaviour exists. At the end of the day, a cell phone is as much a status symbol, something akin to the clothes you wear, as much as it is an actual phone. Would you potentially lower your opinion of someone wearing a strange piece of clothing? The principle is exactly the same.
I'll do you one better: in this specific situation, the antisocial buck stops at the friend group who doesn't all chip in and buy their Android friend a "keep in touch" iPhone.
But the point remains that a cynical UX/technical/business decision that does not need to be so is rending real relationships between actual people. If Tim Cook had the power to render anyone who didn't pay him $400+ mute to their friends and family through some sort of black magic, we'd call him a comic book supervillain.
I bought an Android specifically so I don't have to use an iPhone, speaking as a former iPhone user. "Friends" chipping in to buy me an iPhone isn't something I'd actually want.
Honestly, if your "friend" group is willing to exclude you because you're not using a particular brand of cell phone, then I have some bad news for you: They might not really be great friends.
This is not really true since RCS launched. It does most of what people care about. Everyone sees Emojis and a few other special Fx and videos and pictures now look good for everyone and don't get nerfed as soon as one user is on Android.
Maybe RCS doesn't do all the esoteric iMessage stuff but it doesn't necessarily have to, half those extra features are gatekeeped on having the latest iPhone or whatever and so they don't get used as often.
This is potentially true; I've noticed green-bubble chats are much less annoying in the last year. Do they send over Wifi now? That was also a killer iMessage feature on trips with bad cell coverage.
It surprises me people who actually have this problem don't just switch to a different messaging app. There are many, and the effort required is minimal.
It's called a network effect for a reason. People don't want to use multiple apps so they generally will want all of their friends to be using the same app. Switching to a different app for one friend group adds significant friction.
This is why we need legally mandated interopability for call communications platforms above a certain size. It's absurd that the situation today is worse than the early 2000's where you could use one program to talk to your ICQ, MSN and Aim friends.
Before there was the pandemic and 'Zoom Fatigue' there were other applications such as Skype, Google Meet, WebEx, Go2Meeting and many more that went through a variation of Doctorow's 'enshittification cycle' although it isn't so much that these became commercially exploitative but rather the honeymoon period ended.
If, for instance I want you to try a new "meeting" program your response is likely to be "this could be such a hassle" and the vendor has a strong incentive to make it work well so I can say, "Remember how well Skype used to work ten years ago? Zoom is like that now". In that early phase the vendor invests in quality, once it has an established user base it is 'competing' on the basis of dominance of a two sided market and there isn't any need to invest in quality. (In fact, investors insist on disinvestment because they want to take profits after years of losses.) Eventually it gets so bad that even the two sided market dominance can't save them anymore and a new competitor comes in.
If chat and messaging programs were interoperable, vendors would be competing on quality instead of relying on two-sided market dominance, and we'd have seen the user experience improve rapidly and dramatically over the past 20 years instead of going sideways. I mean, "remember how good ICQ was?"
That is ironic, given how the whole push to get Apple to support RCS came from google in the first place. They had that website with the open letter to try and tell Apple that supporting RCS was in everyone’s best interest and would enable Apple and Android users to be on even footing, etc etc.
But then oops, turns out Google’s on wireless service doesn’t even support it. Maybe google didn’t think Apple would call their bluff?
Google stole Microsoft's position of "arrogant company that just doesn't get it". What I found about Google comms product was that they worked the worst on slow internet connections of any product. Back when I had 2 Mbps or worse DSL, I could get on meetings with anything that wasn't Google Hangouts, Google Talk, Google Meet, etc. It's like it was with Docker Hub, which had low timeouts that made it impossible for me to actually download images to install anything substantial.
That, plus other little slights like only buying high-quality aerial photos of upstate NY years after Microsoft did left me feeling that Google saw me as a non-person because I didn't live in the bay area, NYC, LA or DC.
Usually you actually need to not use third party apps. RCS on Android is usually restricted to Google Messages (or maybe Samsungs built in messages app). Everyone else got the boot
You also sometimes have to enable in the settings for Android Messages (and have a supported carrier). iMessage also has an option to enable RCS but I believe its on by default in the newer versions of iOS
I wrote an "SMS" to the previous tenant of my new flat recently and it got seamlessly upgraded to rcs. With me on an android and them on an iPhone. This was using Google messages, which was the default on my zenfone for sms
My friend group chat was suddenly RCS after updating iOS today and it’s great - no more “So and so liked ‘the entire message body’” messages, we all just see the thumbs up reaction
I don't know, I haven't used Android in quite a few years, but it was my understanding that it was in Google's default SMS app. When I got iOS 18, all of my texts to Android users switched automatically to RCS, so they didn't have to do anything.
In the US, using iMessage involves flipping a switch in some Messages setting--and everyone I know in the US just texts, except for texting with international folks.
Quick note that I'm in the US and my experience is: most random people use SMS; closer friends and family some use Signal, some Discord, some email; colleagues use Slack; overseas taxi drivers etc. use WhatsApp.
This obviously offers more than just sending an email. And since the majority of Apple users aren't very tech savvy, I can see this catching on quickly.
You do not need to own an Apple device to either create events or join events.
> I'll send an email for free, thankyouverymuch.
This seems fine! There are open protocols (email, ics) if they work for you, but Apple specifically developed this in a way to neither require an Apple device or Apple Account to interact. Which is better than some of the competitors! (Facebook and Google tend to create social tools which explicitly require everyone to have accounts.)
> You do not need to own an Apple device to either create events
You need an "iCloud+" account to create, though. Which I as a non-apple user have no idea what is, and probably is useless for me to pay for not using anything apple beforehand.
> Apple today introduced Apple Invites, a new app for iPhone
If Android users have to login to a website to use this, what's the appeal? There are hundreds of simple meeting/event webapps out there, many not even requiring authentication.
> If Android users have to login to a website to use this, what's the appeal?
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to use this. It just was pointing out you don't need Apple accounts or devices to participate opposed to something like Facebook events.
> There are hundreds of simple meeting/event webapps out there
Okay? Go crazy using those! But don't claim that this requires an Apple device to create or join events (like the OP I was responding to). And don't claim that this requires an Apple Account to join events (like many other commentators are).
This is what it's been for me as well, for several years— all meaningful friend-group interactions are now taking place in group chats, sadly this is entirely in Whatsapp and FB Messenger for me; would love if there was a reasonable migration path to getting these interactions entirely off of Meta properties.
The problem is that by vendor-locking these services to Apple users, they create an environment that alienates non-Apple users. If they want to truly claim the friends & family network, they need to remember that everyone has friends & family that aren't in the Apple ecosystem.
So long as Facebook remains available to everyone, even if the content feed is a mess, the event planning space is going to be more accessible to everyone and will end up being the defacto friends & family ecosystem.
I'm not an iCloud+ member, so I can't go in an look for myself, but ideally this would be just a fancy way of extending your iCloud Calendar invites where Gmail, Outlook, etc. users can still create events and invite people in roughly the same way. If as a Linux & Android user I am only able to RSVP to Apple users' invites, but I am never able to invite them to anything myself, then I literally cannot embrace this product without investing considerable money into their hardware, which I am not going to do.
Hell, if they featureset was compelling enough, and they had an iCloud app for non-Apple hardware platforms, I might actually consider being an iCloud+ member, but I guess it's not worth it to Apple to collect a monthly payment from me if I won't make the downpayment on an iPhone and a Macbook...
> So long as Facebook remains available to everyone, even if the content feed is a mess, the event planning space is going to be more accessible to everyone and will end up being the defacto friends & family ecosystem.
For now. We're in the process of seeing Twitter die like every other social network has died before it, Facebook will have it's time as well.
Undoubtedly. I agree 100%. I still think that Apple needs to consider how accessible Facebook is/was if they want to produce a product capable of replacing any part of it.
> So long as Facebook remains available to everyone
This is not a given even today. Creating a new Facebook account involves a ton of scrutiny, you need to upload an ID, and until your account is older and established it’s likely that anything you do can get auto-scanned by some spam bot and get you banned for using some keyword, even in private chats.
I don’t have a Facebook account but I needed to create one a few years back to use my oculus quest (this is before they finally came to their senses and separated the accounts) and I had a lot of trouble convincing FB that I was a real human.
I had a Facebook account long ago, deleted it (and my Twitter and my LinkedIn) both because I thought social media was going crazy and because LinkedIn had personally brought ruin into my life.
Recently I made a new Facebook account to go with my Quest 3 VR headset. I don't find too much appealing about Facebook, posted a little, haven't used it much. I wanted to make an Instagram account because I want to post flower and sports photographs, really inoffensive stuff that would do well on the platform. Whenever I try to create an Instagram account, linked to my Facebook account or not, I get a message saying there was an error and I should try again later but later never comes.
Talking to support about it gets no response. I don't know if my history of deleting my account long ago is the cause or if it is something else.
A person I know who committed a misdemeanor is now on probation and one term of his probation is that he stay off social media, though he can use ordinary web sites. I saw a poster for a board game club which is exactly the kind of community activity that his probation officer would approve of, but the only information on the sign is the title and a QR code that points to... A Facebook group. There are plenty of other people who choose not to use Facebook for various reasons who are also excluded by this.
---
The world badly needs something to support community organizations because of the problems pointed out in this movie based on Robert Putnam's work:
It's not difficult to approach this as a startup, but it is a devilishly hard problem to sustain it without being attached to something toxic like personalization-based advertising. There are plenty of foundations which could afford to fund this kind of effort (e.g. you could kill it at $1M a year if you weren't paying Bay Area wages and didn't have nonprofit bloat) but if anything the ability to fill out the paperwork from grants is inversely proportional to being able to execute on this sort of thing.
> Hell, if they featureset was compelling enough, and they had an iCloud app for non-Apple hardware platforms, I might actually consider being an iCloud+ member, but I guess it's not worth it to Apple to collect a monthly payment from me if I won't make the downpayment on an iPhone and a Macbook...
You can create events from the web iCloud interface without an Apple device.
>If they want to truly claim the friends & family network, they need to remember that everyone has friends & family that aren't in the Apple ecosystem.
They are completely aware of it an actively leverage it to use your friends and family against you to force you into Apple's ecosystem. It's the main reason why Android will have to get pretty bad before I bend to such incredibly dirty tactics.
I'm not convinced they're leaving a lot of money on the table by pitching a free app at a billion iPhone users vs. the famously lucrative Linux desktop market.
Apple and Meta's wet dream is exclusionary friends and family networks tied to their future AR hardware. Half the people at the Christmas party pointing and zooming around an AR globe to talk about their travels and the other half with the wrong brand not able to see anything. Maybe they just place the virtual globe on top of one of them and completely block them out to get more space since they aren't seeming relevant.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Evite was hot for awhile - totally gone downhill. Same as meetups. Tough to make those things as paid businesses which is probably necessary to keep them operating well (or at least take VC money and try and make a return).
Meetup has become the worst service I use, bar none. They pretty much doubled our group fees from $200 a year to $400 a year, then started putting giant banner ads at the top of all of our member emails, then started locking essential features (like seeing RSVP lists) behind a member-level membership and started begging our members to give them money directly.
I think Apple's right about at least part of this - something like Evite isn't an app (or worth paying for), it's a feature that needs to be stuck onside another app that gets paid for.
Luma drives me nuts at conferences, I often end up invited to events without an address because they expect you to subscribe to their calendar feed rather than letting me put an entry in my own calendar.
I see very little use of either Evite or Meetup at this point though I imagine if I sought them out I'd see some continued use. (I do run into an Evite signup from time to time for a paid event.)
For a short period of time back in 2013 or so, we had AnyVite, which was so much better than Evite in all ways. I wonder what happened to them. I think they basically disappeared.
I've used it for so much community organizing. It's such a simple tool and nobody has to make an account. You put in your name and an (optional) password. The optional password feature has served as a source of inspiration in my own projects. It pushed me to consider "does this really need an account? Can it be done without one?"
This Apple thing is going to turn into a "green text" social signalling thing all over again. If you have an Android, you won't be invited.
More scummy Apple social engineering bullshit. Kids that already hate on those having Android colored text bubbles are going to bully each other even more. And of course kids need the latest iPhone, too.
Apple is playing into this brilliantly and it's disgusting.
Apple/iOS has market dominance in several places outside the US, including Japan, Canada, Scandinavia, and several other European nations. It has a slight majority in the UK.
Android has worldwide dominance overall, but people tend to communicate locally.
Nobody uses iMessage in Europe. It's an american phenomenon like beepers, caused by different market conditions.
In Europe the kids use Snapchat. Adults use WhatsApp for most calls, messages and rich media, and maybe Signal/Telegram for select groups or grey activities. The elderly use Facebook messenger and WhatsApp.
Japan and most of Europe do not really use iMessage (Japan uses LINE, Europe generally uses WhatsApp), so I'm not sure exactly how iPhone market dominance is relevant to the previous commenter's point.
iMessage is nowhere near as popular outside the US, mostly because consumers do not expect to default themselves into some kind of single-manufacturer proprietary "ecosystem" that rivals Sony in how anti-consumer it is.
Thanks to the EU, you can just charge newer model iPhones with any USB-C cable now instead of having to pad Apple's profits further with proprietary dongles and cables that offer no additional value.
Your depiction of iMessage (which is essentially SMS+encrypted communication with enhancements to people who also have Apple devices) seems disingenuous, as does your explanation of why people use alternatives outside the US. Outside the HN bubble, most people don‘t care about things like proprietary vs open (and if they did, why the heck would they opt for propietary alternatives).
> Lina Khan was going to put a stop to it, but tragically that didn't reach its culmination.
Lets not kid ourselves she was going to keep focusing on minimum impact, likely to fail cases with good optics, and inventing more obtuse interpretations of anti-trust law while continuing to ignore any real monopolies she could.
It does. If you try to send a photo in an inferior green bubble chat, you get an error. Face time calls don’t work.
The text is harder to read for me because it’s low contrast and can’t be configured.
It’s significantly less secure, and a government agent required I use blue bubble imessage to submit an important document for security, and wouldn’t accept it by sms or email since both were not secure enough
Tbh Apple's RCS implementation is so buggy it almost has me on the "they added bugs to keep people off of it" conspiracy train.
As in, during a conversation my phone would send RCS and the iPhone would reply with SMS only. This has happened multiple times with multiple people, and some where RCS won't let us communicate - the messages just disappear into the void, but only when sent from the iPhone.
If you're in the U.S. and a "government agent" told you to use iMessage, you are 100% being scammed. No way they would accept anything less secure than a fax message or a document portal that looks like it was set up in the 90's.
Sending a message should just default to MMS, which I agree is lower quality especially for videos, but shouldn't get an error. I'm in multiple group chats with Android users and it's fine other than videos, which are from 2005.
I think SMS/MMS should just go away entirely though.
What are you talking about? Photos have worked in MSS group chats for 10+ years now. They send as shit quality but they work. And now mixed group chats are RCS which has all the important features of iMessage.
Got it, I'll move to a country that supports RCS at my earliest convenience, and also not message anyone while I'm roaming to another carrier on vacation.
My carrier should support MMS, but I haven't yet had it work (and inbound messages to my number, like the picture of a family-member's wedding invite sent to my phone number, just silently vanish into the void)... I just kinda assumed it was working as expected since I'd heard so much about the green bubble issues.
i read this take a lot but have never heard of it in practice (from my high school nieces)
what is overwhelmingly prevalent is political bullying; eg "make the dems cry again" was all over the school in various forms (t shirts, device backgrounds, etc)
green bubble hysteria really isn't a thing beyond nerds.
I could see it being really useful for that, my only hesitation would be that here in Europe it would need to support Android due to how ubiquitous that is here.
Pretty high I suspect, since you need it if you want to back up more that 5 GB.
If you keep photos and videos without dealing with a separate service, it's pretty much a no-brainer. And the cheapest tier is $0.99/mo. for 50 GB so it's not exactly breaking the bank.
> And the cheapest tier is $0.99/mo. for 50 GB so it's not exactly breaking the bank.
This is a huge trick. Like any other service where the most friction is setting up billing... then they can increase the price easily. Do upgrades to other tiers require confirmation?
And they haven't increased the price of the $0.99 tier ever, and it's been around for 8 years I think. I don't think they've ever increased the price of any storage plan in the US ever -- prices in other countries have changed but that seems to do more with currency fluctuations.
Apple is known for their transparent pricing and easy cancellation. I don't think there are any tricks here.
If anything their trick is in how they describe the storage tiers on their website[1]:
> $0.99/mo for 50GB: Storage for thousands of photos, videos, and files.
> $2.99/mo for 200GB: Great for family sharing or larger media libraries.
> $9.99/mo for 2TB: Plenty of space for all the family’s photos, videos, and files.
Other than the $0.99 tier, these storage numbers are comically low for the uses cases Apple describes in plain English. But that's par for the course with Apple... An arm, a leg, and your firstborn for storage and RAM upgrades. As in hardware, so in SaaS cloud storage, I guess.
I agree on photos, but when I hear "larger media library" I assume we're talking video content, both family videos taken on phones and commercial media (TV and Movies). Maybe I'm misreading but either 200GB or 2TB are both very small for a whole family's collection of video media.
Honestly, most families do not maintain a digital collection of media. And I say that as someone who does. Most families just have a netflix or prime or apple tv subscription, maybe cable. If there's a collection, it's probably DVD or Blu-Ray still.
99 cents is so innocuous, that people set up billing to allow it. People who set up their apple id without a credit card will probably attach a card to their account to get the 99 cent storage "deal".
At that point, upgrading to the next tier is inevitable as phones have been steadily increasing in storage capacity.
I think it would be nicer if your icloud storage capacity matched your primary device.
If a company doesn't offer a super cheap tier, then people complain it's too expensive and they're paying for space they don't need.
If Apple does offer a super cheap tier, there are complaints it's some kind of trick.
The $0.99 tier has been great for my needs. If you have a 64 GB phone you never need more. If you have a larger phone you quite frequently don't need more -- a lot of my phone storage goes to song, podcast, and video downloads. That stuff doesn't need to be backed up, and isn't by default.
I think that nearly everyone who has an iPhone (at least who didn't get their phone deeply discounted second-hand) has a payment method set up with Apple. I don't remember the numbers from when I had to know ~5 years ago, but it was in excess of 95% in the US.
I avoided subscribing for years out of principle, just backed up my photos locally (which they make as painful as possible — afaik it’s not possible to just plug your phone into a Linux machine and grab all the new photos).
I finally caved a few months ago when I got tired of fighting with the awful backup storage UI that makes it difficult to determine why the backup is failing even though it’s smaller than 5GB.
Apple has every incentive to make that UI as bad as possible while still being functional.
I switched to iCloud for my personal email once it supported personal domains (switched from Fastmail). It’s all I need really. Work is Gmail of course, with its annoying-in-retrospect tagging system instead of folders, which causes havoc with traditional mail apps.
Norway data from statcounter doesn't seem reliable. In just 4 months, July->October 2024, there's a 14% upswing in iphone total marketshare. Which implies that at least 14% of users bought a new phone, assuming (wrongly) that everybody would have changed from Android to iPhone (ignoring also deceases and teenagers getting their first phone).
And the period doesn't even include Black Friday or Christmas. And barely the iPhone 16 launch that happened in September 20, 2024.
Samsung shoot itself in the foot as a phone manufacturer in the last 2 years. Battery life, forced apps, ads, and a pretty bad implementation of the Android OS while trying to sell the phone at the same price as the iPhone.
The S24 ultra still has an ancient 3x cam that has been left unchanged since the S21 ultra.
It's hard to compete when Apple has the Macbook + iPhone synergy/ecosystem advantage.
I dunno most people I know here do appear to have iphones. And many of those who have an Android seemingly have an iPhone as work or personal device in addition. So 60+ percent doesn't sound unlikely.
I remember seeing everyone with iPhone >10 years ago in Norway. Then it dropped - it was pretty visible that is why I remember. Haven't been paying attention about last ~4 years.
I'm in my mid-thirties and most of my friends have ditched Facebook. I didn't really realize this until when I used it to create an event for a house party... I was somewhat surprised that only 2 people out of 15 even saw it. I ended up resorting to good old text message and that worked, but it was tedious. Not sure how popular this will become, but having a social-media-less event invite/broadcasting system would be nice, and having one that most people with an iPhone have access to covers much of my friend base
I thought email was a common denominator but I learned most people don’t check email or check it rarely. So different from the days when everyone had email.
I still use FB and so do many of my friends my age (mid to late 40s). But a bunch have also migrated to Instagram.
Among the younger generation, you’re a millennial if you’re on instagram because they’ve moved to TikTok. FB folks are over the hill. There’s a generational divide and pride in being trendy.
WhatsApp is only a thing among my international friends — many Americans don’t have it.
The only universal now is text messages but it feels so clunky (even with iMessage).
I wonder if it is rooted in similar things though. Right, like with email. People don't really read or check emails because spam became a serious problem. Then with social media, looking at facebook, there is definitely a big different in ad space in facebook between the time I used to use it to now. Where ads have effectively become the "spam" equivalent for social media. Ultimately, did success of these technologies also lead to its demise. Email was so good, so it made sense for a market of spammers. Facebook became a prime place for ads, and as ads become more and more of the platform, people started to consciously or subconsciously step away to other platforms.
>People don't really read or check emails because spam became a serious problem.
With the tabs in Gmail, very little leaks through to my primary inbox that isn't relatively immediately relevant (and not a lot of mail total). Often don't look at Promotions at all and maybe glance at Updates once a day or so.
Email is useful for me though, yes, a lot of my interaction with my circle of friends is over texts.
The problem for me is not so much real spam, this gets filtered. The problem is the massive amount of work required to unsubscribe or clean up automated emails from apps and websites, both transactional and non-transactional.
I know way too many techy and non-techy people who have thousands of unread email messages from those apps.
A lot of people I know don't really answer to real email anymore, unless they know something is coming. It became just something you use to make accounts with.
Even corporate email is dying. 99% of my inbox is transactional emails from SaaS apps and spam from apps I forgot to delete. And 90% of the rest is spam from recruiters or people trying to sell me some product. Only 0.1% is legitimate.
Statistically, email is not for people anymore, period.
Experiences differ. I did go on unsubscribe jags from time to time at my last employer because I ended up on email lists from a lot of events.
But really, I get 5-10 emails a day now in my primary inbox and I don't really have many filters. I DO get a lot in Promotions and Updates, but most of the stuff in Promos I can safely ignore and I mostly keep my eye on Updates if I'm expecting something I might want to deal with there.
Email is still my primary channel for the most part.
There is still a lot of "spam" if you don't spend the effort creating filters or unsubscribing to the new notification list that companies like to make every few months. Hell, my inbox is covered in invoices, receipts, disclosures, required actions, ToS changes, etc., even though I've spent some time setting up filters for some of the common receipts.
Sounds like lots of transactional mail for services you signed up to with that mail. Sign up to less crap or use a different mail from the one you use to communicate with real people.
I used to use a separate email when I ordered things etc. Once Gmail tabs came in, I pretty much stopped doing so because it was too much trouble to monitor a second email address because I actually care about receipts, order tracking, etc. a lot of the time.
I think you've hit the nail on the head of the problem.
A lot of comments online claim that people don't care about spam, or think that advertisements are a good thing for a free service, or at the very least won't change their habits if given an alternative. If that's the case then what's a better explanation for your observations?
I argue that people do care, even if it's perhaps not expressed in words.
We have a family email domain for my extended family, administered by a few retired but very tech-savvy relatives (both had long IT careers) and it’s roughly 50:50 whether a message sent to everyone@ lastname.com will actually show up in people’s inboxes or not. It’s probably 75:25 that a reply all to that list will show up, but modern email is a dumpster fire.
Is this using some cloud-based email host where you don't have any control over the spam filter? Otherwise, whitelisting (verified) senders from your own dowmain should be very much possible.
E-Mail isn't some magic that randomly drops mails. Mail servers are even resilient against network problems and will retry dilevery MANY times. What you are describing is NOT normal and would make using it for business basically impossible, which is not the case since email is still the primary b2b communication method for many companies.
I uses the business version of Office 365 for e-mail. It works well. I never have a problem with e-mails not being delivered or going into a SPAM folder. I am not saying your family did anything wrong. What I am saying is e-mail works well for some people.
Yeah, unfortunately that seems to be the best way to handle this kind of thing but unfortunately that costs $6/person/month so our ~50 person casual email list for organizing fantasy football and family reunions would cost almost $4k/year.
I don't remember the exact timeline but I think SMS became free (bundled with mobile phone plan) in the US before WhatsApp became popular. And most of us don't interact via chat very much internationally. So (probably) most people just default to SMS/iMessage unless there's a reason to do something differently. And even the one person I regularly communicate with chat in Europe, we default to Facebook Messenger.
I'm in my mid 40s, my friends mostly use email for organising events more than a week or two in the future, google chat or WhatsApp for more spontaneous things.
Very occasional FB invites for things when casting the net wide, like, I'm back in town and having a picnic, everyone come.
My wife is late 40s and just deleted her facebook account, and she's the most FOMO person I know - and she did this because of zuck capitulating to trump. A lot of people have had it with companies supporting fascists.
Lol so you/your wife were OK with all the spying and manipulation via ads but not being negative enough towards the democratically elected president is where you draw the line? Hysterical.
Yep, groups was essentially all I used FB for until we moved to Discord (which much better for us), I was so glad when I could stop checking FB completely.
Problem with Discord is you have to enforce real names otherwise you have to limit it to people you know.
Young people I know (except for gamers) find Discord a bit sus because you don’t have any baseline with regard to name or profile pic. Also who already knows who. Discord doesn’t expose any social network outside of the specific server.
You would think Discord would be the community of choice for Gen Z but in reality it’s limited to gamer and gamer adjacent folks.
Turns out identity and known social network are still things people look for to achieve a base level of trust for real time chat.
Reddit and HN are more topic driven, but chat somehow feels more personal.
It's also the only bit of Facebook that hasn't turned into an endless stream of trash. I expect that not to last either, if you're looking for an idea then a localised marketplace alternative with social proof should be on your radar.
For a long time they were heavily promoting "Ships to You" non-local goods. Annoying. Lots of dropshipper type stuff rather than a local unique items. Marketplace seems to have backed off that in the last year(s) though, my feed seems very local, one-off, and "real.
It still has a lot of trash, but 90% of it is trash you experience as a seller. Scammers are still really common, and I doubt the moderation has gotten much better since I failed to sell an empty aquarium because they couldn't be convinced it didn't have fish in it (although based on everything else on Facebook, there probably is just no moderation now).
For people in their early 20s to mid 30s in the NYC area, I'm starting to see mass adoption of an app called Partiful for managing social invites and events, it has a lot of nice features for sending invites, RSVP management, sending text blasts out to attendees (you can schedule reminders the day before or whatever).
My first thought. I’m surprised it’s not everyone’s first thought. Everyone in the bay that I know uses that for parties. Clearly every tech company is aware off the ubiquity of that app at least
Yeah, this is straight up f.lux 2.0 where Apple saw an idea take off, and unlike 'Nightshift' where they connected it to their new 'Health' product to stimulate Apple Watch purchases, they connected Apple Invites to social behaviors to stimulate iMessage and iCloud adoption and revenues.
My social group also uses Partiful. It works great, but it's a little worrying that it's so useful while being free: I can't see how this possibly could make money, so I assume the enshittification is coming any second now.
I can't imagine something like this is expensive to host, minus perhaps the text messages. But presumably they could charge for those (and make a little off the top).
There’s no right or wrong answer but as someone who used to work in publishing, the typeface seems contrived to be amateurish. I wonder if it’s supposed to evoke a more “authentic” unpolished feel? (YouTubers actually find too much polish reduces engagement among younger people)
The pictures are also a bit amateurish but this is more a function of the inviter. On other platforms much of the design choices are made for you so there’s a lower bar but for me, partiful seems to want to hit the kind of “having street cred” aesthetic.
It’s remarkable how this has changed. Back in what I call the “Facebook golden age” (2012-2016), before it turned to complete crap, it was unthinkable to host an event that was NOT organized by Facebook. I recall throwing birthday and holiday parties and all I had to do was scroll through my friends list and invite everyone and that was that. Everyone would see it and everyone would RSVP.
Here friends just send a message on WhatsApp. I do not know anyone who has hosted a house party of 79800 people so that they are struggling with this. But then again I guess some geographies have it more complicated, isn't it?
A (for most of the world, in any case) possibly surprising fact about the US is that WhatsApp is not very popular there.
This indeed causes problems when wanting to create a quick ad-hoc group for a party invitation etc., if at least one of the invitees is not an iPhone user.
The only reason I have WhatsApp is that a couple non-US friends use it from time to time. No one I know in the US does anything other than standard text messaging whether or not it ends up being iMessage.
It causes problems if one of the iPhone owners isn't an active iCloud+ subscriber:
> Creation of invitations requires an iCloud+ subscription.
This isn't about making life easier on people, this is about getting you to subscribe to Apple's services for access to a REST API. Apple gets some benefit of the doubt, but this is literally Slop-as-a-Service.
I can't tell what you're arguing here – are you misunderstanding what you quoted from the FAQ? Only the person who creates the event needs to have an iCloud+ subscription. Everyone else can RSVP to it regardless of whether they have an iCloud+ subscription or even an Apple device at all.
> Do invitees need to have an Apple device with the app to attend an event?
> Apple Invites is for everyone. Guests don’t need the app, an Apple device, or an account to RSVP to an event.
> having one that most people with an iPhone have access to covers much of my friend base
Luckily - you don’t need an iPhone or iCloud account to receive an invite and RSVP to it. Might be harder (or impossible?) to add to photos and music, but you can still get an invite and RSVP to it.
I'm still on facebook and a lot of my friends still are, the main problem we have with facebook events it that almost no one sees them.
This section has been over loaded with suggestions to event you might have no links with of things your remote friends are going to take part of.
Yes, I was also a big Facebook user in my twenties and now I'm in my mid-thirties and it seems Facebook became a lot less useful for this decade of my life.
For the birthdays of children in my social surroundings it seems the best practice has become to create an image with the details of the birthday party. Usually a photo of the birthday child with written Alice is turning 3. Join us for an afternoon of fun at Address on Saturday 16:00.
Usually shared on Whatsapp either in direct messages or in an existing school group if you are inviting the whole class or in ad-hoc group created for the event literally called Alice Birthday Party
People currently use Instagram stories for this a lot and it's absolutely wild how Meta hasn't caught on and built in any sort of infrastructure for you to save and keep track of events.
I don't think it's that they've entirely ditched FB, but FB is genuinely terrible at surfacing event invites. It would prefer you to have to scroll through a bunch of irrelevant garbage in your feed that it had "recommended" instead so the product team can high five themselves over badly designed engagement metrics rather than worry if the users don't actively despise their product.
Yep I second this, I usually find out that I've been invited to an event when someone makes a post in the event, and often not from the event invite itself.
Since Apple was too lazy to make it into a standard, it will probably go the way of App Clips. Niche idea, too few users to adopt it and no stakeholders with enough control to make it popular on other platforms.
iCalendar is RFC 2245[0], written by Microsoft and Lotus. CalDAV is RFC 4791[1] written by Apple, Oracle, and CommerceNet. Those are examples of open standards that Apple happens to use, but aren't Apple standards in the sense that they're something they cooked up internally by themselves.
Even though "... anyone can RSVP, regardless of whether they have an Apple Account or Apple device" I think this being an Apple branded service is going to make this appear exclusionary and will mean some people won't participate even if they could.
I see the same risk involved with Apple TV's branding; Apple TV works great on Xbox, on NVIDIA Shield and on PC. I'm sure though there are a lot of people who just decide that shows like Foundation and subscriptions like MLS Season's Pass just aren't for them. I don't know if it is a 5% or a 20% drop but it has to be real.
The Apple TV one is particularly bad due to them naming the service, the box, and the app the same thing. One of them has a + tacked on, who knows which.
As long as they don’t start naming other things Invite, they might avoid that issue. Although maybe they’ll name their HomePod with a screen that and we’re back to square one.
I very rarely interact with any Apple tech. Recently I wanted to watch Severance, so I signed up for a trial period of Apple TV. It even worked on Firefox on my Linux desktop. But I only get 1080p video, while my screen is 1440p. The show didn't look good, and I found that yes, you can only get 1080p if you're not watching through an Apple device. I would have been happy to become a subscriber of the streaming service, but not if it looks ugly on my PC, so I didn't continue the trial.
I'm sure Apple has data showing that offering higher-res video on non-Apple hardware isn't worth it, but this experience felt like a perfect match for the rest of my experience with Apple - if you want to use their software but not hardware, fuck you. If you want to use their hardware and software with a different workflow than they intended, fuck you too.
Do any mainstream streaming services offer you greater than 1080p on desktop Linux? I had thought that none of them allow it due to the perception of weaker DRM. And because 90% of consumers watching on desktop really care/notice
I am no Apple sympathiser, and I use Firefox religiously, but to be fair to Apple Firefox streaming support and implementation is the worst of all the browsers.
Yeah I've heard similar, although I'm surprised you got 1080p out of Apple TV on Linux.
The streaming services landscape is very weird in general. Lots about DRM or what have you that cause very bizarre rules like Netflix only allowing Opera on linux to play full 1080, or how on mac Edge only does 720. Some of them refusing to show anything over 720p on browsers no matter which platform. Of course some have workarounds through extensions.
Certainly not the seamless experience one would have hoped from the switch away from cable services!
As a big fan of Apple TV boxes and a medium fan of Apple TV+, I can't agree with this strongly enough. It's such an unforced error.
It's so unnecessary to call everything "Apple something" when they've had great success creating recognizable brand names like "iPod", "iPhone", and "Macintosh".
Calling it "Apple TV+" just feels like both the set-top box and the streaming service wanted the name "Apple TV" and neither side was budging.
Seriously - not sure what they were thinking - but this confuses the hell out of everyone (especially if they have the Apple TV+ app installed on their smart TV directly and an Apple TV physical box hooked to the same TV)
I was shocked at how bad the onboarding experience for Mac is in 2025. I replaced a dying but well seasoned Alienware laptop with a M4 mini, my wife was furious about 'ads everywhere' I mean, Microsoft is notorious for the unwanted solicitations that come with Windows but the nagging pop-ups that are barely altered from 1984 modal dialogs [1], dock crammed with unwanted applications, terrible Safari experience without ad blocker, need Apple account to install ad blocker (at least you can log into Windows with a Microsoft account.) So far as I can tell I didn't even get the 3 months of Apple TV that comes with an iPad.
[1] OG mac, not Orwell. At least Microsoft nags look like HTML.
Software engineer here with an android phone. I've never bothered to look into Apple TV because I assumed it'd only be available on Apple devices. Similarly, I saw this post and thought there may be a reason for me to get an iPhone now as I assumed this would be available on apple devices only.
> "there may be a reason for me to get an iPhone now as I assumed this would be available on apple devices only."
That's the objective. Green text and all. To force everyone to adopt one platform because of network effects and social stigma.
These platform plays by the god tier trillion dollar companies are insidious and should be given scrutiny by the DOJ / FTC.
A breakup of these platforms would make none of this matter. You could pick and choose services across devices. We might even see some competition for Android and iPhone if the DOJ would step in and break this up.
Big tech is too big. A breakup would oxygenate the entire tech sector. It would probably even make the MAGMA stock go up because the sum of parts are being given away for free just to get eyeballs.
Billions of dollars are being given away for free to scrape in network effect advantages. It's at a level where competition from new players is virtually impossible. They can tax anything that moves. Every transaction, every relationship, every quanta of information.
I'm only aware it doesn't need an Apple device because spouse does have an iPhone and was able to set it up on our Roku that way. I still assume that someone in the household does need an iPhone in order to get a subscription, although now I think about it probably that's not true.
It will feel that way at a distance because it basically is.
To start, it's not a service but an app. Sure there is a web interface, but the focus on the app already sets the stage (which also puts macos only users in an interesting position).
Then non-Apple users probably can only respond when the sales pitch is "to contribute to Shared Albums, and engage with Apple Music playlists"
If I'm not an Apple user there will only be downsides to using this service compared to any other one.
> there are a lot of people who just decide that shows like Foundation and subscriptions like MLS Season's Pass just aren't for them.
This needs anti-trust breakup. Tech companies shouldn't be media giants. They're turning a once-healthy media industry into an attention economy platform play, giving it away below cost, and wringing a robust sector of the economy of its value.
It's disgusting that Apple and Amazon are doing this. Amazon owns James Bond. And they're a grocery store and primary care doctor, for god's sake. That's not good.
This is worse than Standard Oil and Ma Bell because they own our entire lives: eyeballs, financial transactions, business matters, commerce, and personal relationships.
> I think this being an Apple branded service is going to make this appear exclusionary and will mean some people won't participate even if they could.
Don't you think that's kind of the point? Do you think having green and blue messaging bubbles was unintentional?
Yes it was intentional, but this is a different case. If a meaningful percentage of people don't think they can attend an event because they don't own an iPhone, that's a big problem for adoption of this product. Whether that will happen or not, I have no idea, but I think that's what the person you responded to was saying.
This era of new experimental apps from Apple (Invites, Journal, Sports) has me excited about the future of app design. Vibrant colors, bold personality-driven typography, etc. The SwiftUI style onboarding screen that features the carousel is really fun. This approach feels very Apple'y, but gives me more freedom to explore designs for my own app to have its own unique voice on iOS, while still feeling in-family with Apple's other more experimental UI.
There are a few misses.
- I already declined a friend's invite, but that doesn't get auto filtered away, so my "decline" is still the primary thing the app has to show me. It's still my only invite, so maybe it gets filtered to the back of the card stack if there are multiple?
- I also don't seem to be able to see friends I know who were invited to the party (but have not yet responded). Perhaps it was because it was shared as an invite URL in a group chat rather than manually inviting everyone?
The lag between OTA broadcast and cable/streaming is insanely bad. We had several screens tuned in to World Cup, and the group watching the OTA broadcast would cheer 15-20 seconds before the cable/streaming screens would. Knowing it exists is one thing, but seeing it in that manner puts it on a whole other level
We used to use that to our advantage; put the radio on the ballgame, put the TV on MLB.TV, and if something exciting happened we could get over to the TV in time to watch it.
What's annoying is when you get an out-of-bound popup while you're trying to watch the game! I don't want to know that "opposing team hit a grand slam" whilst I'm watching the pitcher at 3-2 and bases loaded.
Where do you come up with 3 seconds when I said 15-20 seconds later?
The World Cup I was referring to was the infamous match where a player received 3 yellow cards, and the delay from cable was so long that the OTA viewers (a Spanish language broadcast) had time to come running in to ask if that made any more sense in English. But the English broadcast had not yet seen it.
It was just bizarre. It's negative because it's annoying AF. But since you want to minimize things by making up numbers to attempt to make a point instead of accepting the provided information, there's no way we'll ever see eye to eye.
3 seconds would not matter to me. As it is, latencies are much higher and afford time for my family group chat (WhatsApp) to "spoil" events that I have not yet seen. I don't want to ignore the chat. :(
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 :)
“iPhone-only social networking” has been very successful (amongst my US-based peer group, at least), once you include iMessage - that’s the point. I don’t know much about apple invites, but if it integrates well into iMessaging then this is a very strong play.
Just the way I wrote the reply. It's unnecessary. Yes, you send a text and it's iMessage or not iMessage. Doesn't matter. There are some nuances if you're on your Mac with your phone off/on an international SIM (which I admit to not totally understanding).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So that's a green bubble situation. You get a subpar experience, your iPhone friends get a subpar experience from including you, and eventually they'll yell at you "well just get an iPhone already!"
I don't really see that at all. I have a circle of friends, some of whom have iPhones and some not (to say nothing of companies/doctors sending me reminders and the like), and the non-iPhones seem to work just fine. I sure don't care what color their text bubble is.
SMS text delivery has always been sporadically unreliable for me. The cases where the messages are delayed by several minutes or hours are almost as problematic as the cases where they never arrive at all.
It doesn't seem to be specific to any country, though some are worse than others. Definitely seems to be a "best effort" service everywhere.
Apple may not be exactly jumping in joy about it but, even if it's mostly only useful for people in the US, they probably don't see that as a showstopper either.
I have a US number and live in Switzerland. At least for me, I only receive SMS messages whenever I visit the US -- the rest of the time they're just dropped and I'll never see them.
(Doesn't really bother me, my friends and I all use WhatsApp/etc. anyway.)
n=1 though, maybe this is some quirk of my phone provider.
Somehow they're unreliable just in the US. I had someone think I was mad at them because when I texted them to hang out it never made it. Had to remember to switch messaging apps.
If the plethora of iCalendar email attachments I've seen over the years (despite not owning any Apple devices or using their software) is any indication, I'm not sure that only being on Apple devices will be a significant barrier to people trying to coordinate stuff with this.
I don't see how this competes with partiful. Feels like it'll be another half baked never updated app from apple. I wish they'd open their apis and integrations more. Feels silly that these apps get first class access to apple apis, meanwhile better made apps are forced to do weird workarounds, or simply have no integrations.
I see this app as more like the Notes, iMessage or Freeform apps. There are tons of apps out there that do XYZ better, but Apple wants to ship a polished version that does 90% of everything the average user needs. It accomplishes three things (in my eyes):
1. It helps grow Apple's ecosystem by covering just enough ground to make third-party alternatives less necessary for most users.
2. It reduces one of the major "sticky" points that keep people in Facebook's own moat. Events and Marketplace are the two reasons I still use Facebook.
3. It encourages competition from the people who want to do that last 10% better than Apple's apps, raising the baseline and hopefully forcing innovation as well. Those apps lead to more App Store revenue, so, cynically, it's a win-win for Apple.
It’s based on the new GroupKit API, which sounds like something that would be available to other apps in the future. Otherwise it would just use some private API.
If anyone's looking for an open source alternative (and maybe wants to contribute to it) we're working on it here! [1]
We actually started before this was announced, and initially it was developed for a somewhat different use case (more focusing on "recurring invites"), but since it was asked a few times, I think we can offer a good alternative with it. [2]
Looks neat, but I won't use it or recommend it to anyone because it's built with Flutter.
I understand your reasons for choosing it, but that does not change that Flutter apps feel completely _wrong_ on any platform except Android, but most especially on iOS/macOS and the web. (This is unsurprising because Flutter is essentially a modern day implementation of Swing complete with personalities, and it's just as incorrect in its styling as Swing was. It's worse for the web because Flutter explicitly eschews standard web technologies in favour of either one big canvas or lots of little canvases.)
You’re welcome to think that, but it's not a dumb take — it is an aesthetic and technical take (you know, de gustibus non est disputandum).
My attention is valuable (at least to me and those around me), and I choose not to waste that attention on applications that are built with a framework that quite deliberately disrespects the platforms I choose while presenting a badly drawn version of the thinnest layer.
On macOS and iOS, Flutter pretends to conform to platform standards, but it does so very badly (I can always tell if I'm using a Flutter app; it's just off…and my battery life suffers because Flutter is such a bad citizen). Honestly, I probably wouldn't hate Flutter on iOS if it didn't pretend to conform to iOS standards while missing the mark (just like every Google app misses the mark on what an iOS app should look like; it's just wrong).
On the web, Flutter is even worse by pretending that there's only one HTML tag, <canvas>, and throwing away _all_ of the rest of HTML to do everything else that HTML does, but worse and less accessibly. That, ultimately, is unforgivable and a waste of everyone's time.
Regardless of how useful gioazzi's project may be, the technical choices made put it well outside of the boundaries where I am comfortable recommending its use to anyone — and that's fine. I posted a similar take about someone who did a Show HN about a project they made which required a Google login; I was interested in seeing what they had done until I saw that requirement. That technical choice, while a valid one, put it well outside of my "I will try this thing at all" zone.
I shared this stance because I know I’m not alone, and people need to know if their architectural choices put them outside of the market they are targeting. I might or might not be in their market, but it's still a useful thing to know that there's this one asshole in Toronto who won't use it because they took the "easy" way out for pseudo-cross-platform support. (I do not have the same reaction to React Native, but that's because it ultimately doesn't try to emulate the platform.)
Well of course as any technical choice this is a compromise These are all very valid points, that we did consider, but I think the alternatives were just not as good.
I feel less strongly about apps not looking like system apps; in fact, I kind of dislike apps that try too hard to look like the settings page: I like when they bring some variety, some personality, something that makes them stand out. Though I agree that broken interactions are unbearable, e.g. apps that break the "swipe back" gesture.
It could have been a web app as well (in fact, the initial version was), but some offline functionality was needed, and service workers messing up caching and iOS not being a great player with PWA, it just ended up being more painful than it should have been.
Or we could have built 3 apps, which I would have loved (but we are a team of 3, and working on a bunch of other things at the same time). Flutter does have a fairly good developer experience (its hot reload cycle is unmatched in my opinion), but of course native development, with all the support libraries you get from the platform, is on a different level.
(What even is native though? Is UIKit "more native" than SwiftUI? Is Safari native? And how about the web apps you open in Safari? It's JS code, but at some point it's compiled to ARM instructions, now running from the very same memory pages as Safari, does that make the web app native?)
Having said that, it's not like I need to convince you to try out our app, it's good that we have options and probably Apple Invites is what works best for you!
But out of curiosity, when is the last time you did try out a Flutter app?
Because they have been improving a lot, in fact for quite some time they ran better on iOS than on Android thanks to the new Impeller rendering engine (now default on Android as well)[1]
They did some work for accessibility on Web, too.[2]
BTW it's funny you mention React Native, I last built something with it a long time ago... and it wasn't that good - but I just realised I do use some React Native apps right now, so I guess they also improved a lot; I should give it a shot again!
It's been a while since I knowingly tried a Flutter app. Most of the ones that I have used even temporarily are Google garbage, and they are so bad that I will not give any Flutter app another try. I also fundamentally think that the technical approach of Flutter is wrong and should be resisted. You now not only have the "build platform lagging system platform" problem (something that happens to all non-native development options), but you have to trust that the Flutter people understand the target systems well enough to make the "draw" work (I think they fail every single time, just like Swing with its "windows" or "mac" personalities did).
But platform appearance is the thinnest layer (and Flutter can't even get that right because of its model). Design is about how something works (and a little about how it looks). Flutter apps don't look like iOS/macOS apps, but more than that, they don't feel like iOS/macOS apps. Flutter apps on the web will never feel like a proper web citizen, because they aren't — they're either a single canvas or a lot of canvases that have to have accessibility hacks instead of building on the platform.
If Flutter as a system decided to take the Swing approach of having its own "native" look and feel (https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/java-swing-look-feel/), I would not expect Flutter apps to conform to the high standard that I’ve expressed here. But the moment that they said "we can do better than Apple with the Cupertino personality", they failed — and IMO so does everyone who uses that.
(We had someone at work try to push Flutter as a cross-platform, including web, engine a couple of years ago. It was a complete disaster because he didn't know Flutter, didn't know Dart, and wasn't actually very good at architecting anything in the end, either. His React apps were nearly as bad. It took someone less than three weeks to rewrite the demo app from Flutter — which took 2 people ~6 months to build — to React Native and it did more, more smoothly.)
> Flutter apps feel completely _wrong_ on any platform except Android [...] Flutter explicitly eschews standard web technologies in favour of either one big canvas or lots of little canvases.
I think you're confused about how Flutter works on Android. It's not native to Android, it uses canvas with custom drawn implementations of most components there too – same as it does for iOS/macOS/web.
Oh, I’m not confused; there is no "native" for Flutter. I just don't think that Android has a meaningful platform aesthetic‡ and most people who use Android tend to expect nothing to necessarily make sense (these are the same people who use Windows).¶
‡ I periodically try Android devices and bounce off them because I find the UI to be obtuse or deliberately built for dark patterns. I was helping a neighbour with his new-to-him Pixel 8a and to see the pictures he had taken with his camera on the phone, he had to sign in with a Google account — and then we disabled the backup because he didn't actually care to back up the photos (they are ephemeral for his purposes). It took 45 minutes to figure this out because the settings and controls can only be set when you have already signed into the damned account.
¶ I am not saying that the people who expect nothing from Android would find iOS any better; they have just been trained through decades of bad UI/UX in Windows and Android (because they're cheaper) to understand that they have to fight with their computing devices to get anything done, so they don't expect anything better … and is it ever delivered to them, in spades. Flutter, here, does not help — but at least it doesn't clash with the fifteen different "platform" styles on your typical Samsung Android device.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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 (!).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Did you know that in iMessage, Android user texts are the same color as iOS user messages? It's true.
As the iOS user, it is your own messages that are green or blue depending on whether it was sent using iMessage or SMS. It's useful feedback about whether your message was sent on a reliable channel.
I know it became a whole thing and that Apple has allowed it to remain as such. But it's not really an apt analogy.
I don't view SMS as reliable. It was only a couple years ago that I switched to Signal for a friend after our texts back and forth had been silently dropped one too many times.
I don't know how long RCS has been around, but my impression is most or all of my messages until recently were SMS.
iMessage now says "Text Message - RCS" or "Text Message - SMS" in the text entry box which is better than the green/blue bubble thing (though it does still have that).
The article also says "collaborative playlists allow Apple Music subscribers to create a curated event soundtrack" so there's clearly a subset of functionality that's only available for certain users. There's "integration with Maps and Weather", but how does that look like in Android? Can I still "contribute to Shared Albums"?
> I tested it with a sample event and I don't see any way to RSVP without logging into an Apple account. Maybe I'm missing something?
You are. I explicitly created a burner email and invited it to an event.
When I navigated from the invite email I was prompted to sign in which I declined. It then allowed me to join the event after I confirmed with an emailed code.
On joining the event I was able to set my name and send a note.
The way I tested it was to create Share link, then navigate to it in an incognito window on Desktop and try to RSVP. I am still unable RSVP without login. Perhaps it works without login if you explicitly invite a certain email.
What's preventing Google from competing and making their own better version of this? I don't see where there's anything that Apple is doing here that couldn't be easily replicated by them using their own ecosystem.
The whole green bubble thing has got to be one of the stupidest status symbol things I've seen in a long time. Though I have no doubt there are many of them. If anything, it's maybe a good life lesson that many supposed status symbols are breathtakingly stupid to care about.
I don’t believe it’s just status symbol - until the recent RCS implementation having an Android phone in your group text meant that photos/videos would be awful MMS quality.
>some supposed status symbols are breathtakingly stupid to care about.
All status symbols are stupid, that's part of the point. That has never mattered. It doesn't matter how stupid a symbol is, it can still have tangible effects on you and your life.
Humans are social animals first and foremost, and are not rational in any way. Tribalism is literally the point.
It's not the bubble color; it's that (early) iMessage groups were much better than SMS groups, and so if you added a greenie it resulted in a worse experience.
That's not so much the case anymore, from what I understand (even the "reactions") work decently well, now.
You're not entirely wrong but also not my nor Apple's problem. Things like universities can be status symbols but they're mostly not entirely status symbols. Plenty of other things like that too.
But if it's not bubble color, it will be the type of sneakers kids wear or whatever else is the fashion of the moment.
As if there was no bullying in any other age? Is Apple's walled garden really the source of this bullying? Teenagers can bully each other about anything.
They don't need to. Android users can do the most important thing advertised here (RSVP) without the app or an iPhone. Also, hopefully the EU has better things to do than constantly force Apple to support Android users (for free!) at the same level of quality as their own customers.
Do you really think so? I’m wary of walled gardens but as an EU citizen I think that we in the EU should try to innovate more and be more mindful of what regulations we put in place.
On one hand it’s a good thing: so many invite services are coated in ads they deserve to fail. On the other, yet another service getting sucked up into the tech giant blob.
If open formats prevailed we would have expanded calendar invites so they just appear in your inbox like any other email for free. But alas, everyone has given up on that.
I am with you, it's so stale and dull as an offering. No one would even use the calendar stuff even if it was an open format. The fact it isn't even that....
What's really extreme is that you need an iCloud+ subscription if you want more than 5GB of iCloud storage… so requiring the subscription for this app is not much of a hurdle
the iBrand hasn't done a good job of explaining that no apple hardware product has to be bought, to sign up to this cloud.
In some ways, "Cloud, by Apple" would have been better because it could have had a subsidiary tagline 'open to anyone' -where iPhone, iPad are pretty solidly walled garden devices.
I'm not in marketing. I am sure smart marketing people would point out downsides. I just think iCloud "says" -not for me, unless I have an iPhone.
Even if some iCloud+ things could work without any Apple devices, I'm not sure why anyone would want it. Most of them only get value from the integration (like hide my email, storage space, etc).
Yes. I think thats true but possibly a result of the strategy to make it compelling to move into the ecology. "Brought to you by apple" would be more openly "meh, you can make other choices" -Apple TV for instance, drives fine through devices able to do the API calls with apple approved client software, its not "sorry go buy an Apple TV" only.
Apple don't sell the Roku or Chromecast devices, basically. So, for Apple TV it's clear you don't have to be iFriendly only.
Probably I'm seduced by how amazingly cheap 1TB of Apple cloud is, compared to the others. Its a LOT cheaper than Google 1 or Microsoft's offering, discounting all the other side benefits.
Bizarre to launch this feature outside of a regular event given this limitation. It is a nothingburger of a feature (just a clone of existing services) AND it requires you to have a paid subscription.
If I had to assign a dollar value to being able to use this feature on my phone, it would be pennies per month.
Yeah, that’s a dealbreaker right there. On a positive note, hopefully, this will be enough impedance to prevent widespread adoption in my social circle.
“Additionally, participants can easily contribute photos and videos to a dedicated Shared Album within each invite to help preserve memories and relive the event.”
This sounds like a great feature. Post event photo sharing is always a bit of a mess.
- I'm glad to see this, as it might be an easily accessible alternative to Facebook events, which I tend to miss as I'm checking my FB only once in a while
- on the other hand, each new Apple release adds apps that might kill some small start-ups that are offering similar services for the small fee. Having a free alternative on your phone out of the box with most of your contacts using will lead to a decent number of subscriptions' cancellations. A good lesson to build smth that is harder to reproduce, though...
Not necessarily, I used to use Apple Reminders initially because it was free, i found the value of a good TODOs app by using it extensively.
Then once I loved using Todo apps, I migrated to Todoist and started paying for a Todo app.
Apple Reminders is the reason why I pay for Todoist app, it helped me learn it, same reason why I moved from free iMovies app to a paid video editing app.
Same reason why I moved from Free Apple Notes to Bear Notes + Muse App (both paid subscriptions)
In a way, provided other apps keep accelerating and moving ahead of apple, apple’s free apps kinda end up working as free trial sessions for showcasing the Utility of a good App.
Also, its a good thing apple ends up commoditizing free entry-level apps, there’s a billion software out there to build for different industries, its the only way, the prices of software will fall, which means more money in our pockets to spend on other things. So it’s fine, just as long as people don’t forget to innovate, that’s the way a free market should be.
What is anti-competitive tho, is stuff like Apple Music and Spotify, where spotify has to pay 30% cut to apple while apple music doesnt have to pay anything. But as long as apple is commoditizing entry-level apps, for other fast moving startups that can be a good thing, as they can show better value to customers who already have tried out free apple apps and see the value of those softwares.
I would have never paid for all those apps each month, were it not for apple’s free apps that helped me see the value in it.
That's a great way to view it, I haven't looked at it from this angle before, thanks.
> What is anti-competitive tho, is stuff like Apple Music and Spotify, where spotify has to pay 30% cut to apple while apple music doesnt have to pay anything.
Yeah, that's why the monopoly is rarely a good idea for the customers, in my opinion.
To point 2: who cares? As a consumer I prefer (1) a team that will not run out of money and sell my data and (2) a free service built-in and well integrated, and (3) not yet another subscription to forget to cancel
I see your point.
There are a few objective moments, imho, that I'd consider, though:
> a team that will not run out of money and sell my data
While "not run out of money" is true, the "sell my data" part is not given. For example, in 2023 Google sold its domains business (https://domains.google/) to Squarespace.
Also, while not directly selling your data, they might sell the outcomes of your data in a form of ads or AI models, for example. I believe that can objectively bother some people.
Another point: this is the way to build a monopoly, or a global dominance on the market, and then dictate the rules. I see that stories about some Big Tech monopoly controversial moves are often quite popular on HN, as those situations resonate with many tech enthusiasts.
As for the rest of the point, I agree with you, that a free, high-quality, and decent service is a benefit for us, consumers, over another subscription. I still feel sorry for small bootstrapped services. But that's my subjective feeling, I'm aware of that.
I just used it for my annual Super Bowl party. What a crappy experience.
I sent the link - the receiving person has to sign-in into iCloud using their Apple ID to confirm. That process requires them to authenticate with MFA. Once said and done, they finally mark as attending and I get a nice notification with their Apple ID picture and name. I sent it to several people, only one completed it successfully. Rest just gave up at the login stage.
Green balloons, but they are deflated enough so that the #555555 (grey) balloons are clearly the superior experience. And then when people point out that the green balloons are intentionally hobbled, a voice tells them to just buy their mom an iphone if she wants a balloon that properly bounces.
Was about to say this. Though less useful, because Partiful doesn't require an app so can be used by anyone.
I wonder how much the network effect may be leveraged for apps like these, to the benefit or detriment of apps like Partiful in comparison with Invites.
I know Facebook's last useful feature appears to be events in many circles.
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.
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.
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.
This is a weird way to think about it. You are basically saying a company should not launch something exclusive to their platform or ecosystem, but rather should consider launch a generic product compatible with everything out there. Why would they ? How will they stand different if everyone does that ?
Exclusivity is a basic part of business model. Look at PS4 with exclusive titles. Hell, look at your local store with exclusive products only available in their stores.
I would have agreed with you if Apple had done this for a basic feature like calling. But this sure is a privileged feature and there is nothing wrong in making it exclusive to iPhone (but they haven't you see).
If you feel your ability to interact with your friends and family is threatened by some business launching a service, you should seriously question your friends and family and/or your and/or their social/communication skills.
The self-entitlement is getting old. Nobody's forcing you to switch platforms. If your Apple-friends send you an invite, you will not be shunned from the event. Yes even the uncool non-Apple users will be allowed to participate in said invite.
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.
Two of the features of Invites are sharing photos and sharing music. These are both locked down to users of Apple services (Photos and Music). So you can invite anyone, but those people won't be able to fully participate in your event.
There's nothing really wrong with Invites if you're happy to only have photos from people with iPhones or to let the music be exclusively chosen by Apple users, but you can't pretend it's a fair and equal system.
Depends on how you define locked down. Apple Music has been available on the Google Play store for years [1] and also supports listening in a web browser on any operating system [2]. I do agree Photos could use some cross-platform improvements.
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.
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 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.
>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?
The only problem I have with this, as an android user, is that there's probably no API available for someone to build an integration for other platforms if the market was there. I don't expect Apple to go and create cross platform clients for every service they put out, they're not a service first company, they're an Apple service first company.
That's a big problem though. They're targeting a class of use cases currently covered by iCalendar family of open protocols[0] and handled by every calendar and e-mail app there is. Because of their narrowed focus on features most relevant to individuals, families and groups of friends, they'll be able to deliver a superior experience there for people on their platform - and they have both enough users and the correct placement in the "tech stack" (unlike e.g. Facebook/Meta or other social platforms, that already tried and failed to pull it off) to break universality of iCal for everyone else.
If this sticks, it won't only screw you or me over as Android users with Apple users in our friends groups. This will quickly bubble up from friend gatherings to community groups and local services businesses. At some point, you'll find that your kids' kindergarten or your stylist or even your doctor starts sending you Apple Invites instead of e-mail invites (.ics), because the Apple variant also comes with a shared photo album. It's actually surprising when you notice just how many appointments could use a shared photo and/or document collection directly linked to them - that part is actually a good idea from Apple. It's just sad that they're weaponizing it instead of improving what already works for everyone.
I can't say I've ever received an event invitation via iCalendar. Getting an .ics download for an event to put it on my calendar, sure, but that's not an invite, it's just a read-only event.
Yeah I think this is targeting Facebook Events (which they seem like they've been trying to kill off anyway) and Partiful more than calendar meetings/appointments.
Anyone can RSVP, but only Apple users can fully partake in it.
Also, per sgt's comment below, it seems it works the same way as sharing documents via OneDrive. "Share with anyone, doesn't require sign-in". That is the actual text from the Share dialog in Windows 11. "Doesn't require sign-in". Well, except if you're sharing more than one document under a link - then it forces recipients to sign in with an account. It's even documented in the on-line help for the feature, just not mentioned in the UI. Also, when you share a single document, while sign-in truly isn't required, the link still leads to a login page that urges signing in or creating an account, and just has this tiny, barely noticeable link to access without login, tucked in the corner somewhere.
(I miss Dropbox's "Public" folder from a decade ago. That was the first and last time sharing documents from web drives made sense.)
I tried this and RSVP'd with an email that didn't have an Apple account, and it asked me to created an Apple account.
I originally created the event using my own Apple account which definitely has iCloud+. So how do I create an event that someone without an Apple account can RSVP to?
Sometimes it's also good to stop worshiping trillion dollar companies who abuse their market dominance.
While tech-literate Apple users couldn't tell the difference, their images and videos were sent in potato quality to non-Apple devices. So while technically, they could communicate with non-Apple users, it was a bad experience for anyone not in "walled garden".
p.s Not taking features put out by Apple at face-value doesn't mean I didn't read the article.
Yet, there's nothing iPhone specific about this idea. They didn't have to limit it in the way they did. In the future they can change the approach too and both remove and restrict features, because they will always go iPhone-first. Being able to use this in a restricted way today is just that. I share the "apple (and any corp)-first solution should fail" hope.
In the future they can change the approach too and
both remove and restrict features
Unlike a lot of product categories... I don't really see a strong lock-in factor here?
Example: If you are heavily invested in Apple Music or Spotify, there's a lot of momentum there to keep you from switching. All your stuff is there (songs, favorites, playlists) and it would take a lot of time to re-find it on the other service, if it even exists there.
And streaming services like Netflix lock you in with constant reams of new content.
But what would be keeping me on some particular invite service? If I used Apple Invites for my last party two months ago... but I have decided that Apple Invites sucks now... I really don't see a lot of friction keeping me from switching away? The inconvenience would not be zero but seems minor.
You can switch. But now you also need to convince a random person that they should switch, because you can't easily use what they're using. And you may be the only one out of 10 people in the group complaining about it. Instead of their technical problem, Apple can make it a "you" social problem.
"Guests can view and respond to an invitation using the
new iPhone app or on the web without needing an iCloud+
subscription or an Apple Account."
They don't need to buy an Apple device or create an account. (I would assume that they get a text message with some sort of unique individual URL, and from there they can respond to or view the invite)
So I do not follow when you claim that I would need to convince all my friends to "switch." Can you elaborate?
These are the things people use around here to organise events. Four of those require a persistent account and an app, three of those are Meta for which I'm the loner yelling that I won't touch them with a 10 yard pole and a hazmat suit.
What are you proposing instead? That these should all be decentralised/federated? SMS/RCS? Matrix? email? ICS?
Ideally, yes, distributed. But otherwise almost every calendar service allows events with invited people. Even if each of those services is closed itself, they're all expected to work with any email client and browser. And then you... email messages.
The difference is that all of them work cross devices. That's why I only get video calls with WhatsApp and I never get one using one of the many video call apps of Google. I learned today, by reading this thread, that somebody could have sent me a link to a Facetime call. I never got one. Everybody in my country use WhatsApp for video calls (maybe somebody is videocalling with Facebook Messenger or Facetime, very few with Telegram) and nobody has to worry about which mobile OS the other person have. WhatsApp has commoditized both iPhones and Androids here. When people choose to buy a phone they don't think about how they'll make calls or send messages. They install WhatsApp, because they have to or they won't call and message a lot of people, and the problem is solved.
Edit: by the way, probably every single phone has builtin interoperable 1 to 1 video calls from the days of 3G. I remember testing them in late 2002 / early 2003. They worked and probably still work unless they retired the standard because everybody is using apps.
You (like quite a few others) didn't read the linked press release which would have been a good prerequisite for joining this conversation. I guess you really just wanted to unload on your least favorite tech company.
I did read the press release, and this seems pretty open.
"Guests can view and respond to an invitation using the
new iPhone app or on the web without needing an iCloud+
subscription or an Apple Account."
So what's objectionable about this?
Your buddy can invite you to a party using this thing and you can RSVP without installing an app or creating an account. That sounds pretty good to me. You have a web browser, right?
ICS, yes. Like most event services that aren't Meta work with.
ICS + e-mail is the established standard. It works, and has worked for decades, to the point people don't think about it in terms other than just "calendar invites".
> They don't even care which service that link originates from, they just press yes and that's it.
There's a reason Apple integrates shared photo albums with Invites. It's actually something useful to be linked with an invite in almost all non-corporate use cases. And I bet you this feature will remain broken for non-Apple users.
Yes, but. Most of the invited folks might have an AppleID associated with their email, that they have not used for years. And invite will ask to enter the password if you have an AppleID associated.
> but apparently the ‘color of the bubble’ has been a big thing in the U.S. among youth
It's not the color itself that's the problem, it's that having one green user means the entire conversation falls back to SMS and thus photos, videos, etc are all degraded and you can't do more rich messaging things like reactions. This is changing with RCS but it is in Apple's interest to make it a social change rather than just a technological limitation.
> it is in Apple's interest to make it a social change rather than just a technological limitation.
It is a technical requirement? How would non-iMessage users respond to the whole group including the ones on iMessage?
When you sit for 5min and think about the whole flow across a bunch of message exchanges every other way there's really no other technical solution than downgrading the whole conversation to SMS/RCS.
The solution is the same one used by every other messaging app: allow iMessage on Android. There is no technical thing stopping them. Instead they actively take measures to prevent it from working.
If people want to group SMS they should open their phone's SMS app. If people want to group iMessage they should all open iMessage. If people want to chat on signal, they should all open signal.
Unfortunately, iMessage is bizarrely both iOS's SMS app and a custom signal-like chat protocol, but the user can't pick between the protocols easily and it switches between them in an opaque way.
It's just a bizarrely bad UX by a company that supposedly is good at UX, and the only purpose it seems to serve is to provide this broken green-bubble experience.
I'd much rather if iOS just had "iMessage" as an app without SMS, had "SMS" as an app for only SMS/MMS/RCS, and then allowed android users to make an apple account and install iMessage (possible with an optional 1-time fee to prevent spam, like having to buy a $700 iPhone and throw it away as a sorta "proof of work" in order to make a iMessage-for-android account. This isn't too different from how some of my friends do this now, with a mac mini in their closet for iMessage which they remote desktop into if they want to chat to iPhone using friends, and use for nothing else).
RCS is not a downgrade, it can also be E2E encrypted but Apple's implementation doesn't use it. It is entirely a business decision to not support the full capabilities of RCS as the iMessage sender system.
The only implementation of E2E RCS is Google's Jibe, which is a proprietary, non-standard version. There is no mention of encryption in the spec other than to say that it's up to carriers to determine. Apple, in contrast to Google's proprietary approach, has offered to work with carriers and the GSMA to define a common set of standards for encryption.
I never said it wasn't proprietary, just that Apple doesn't use it currently. It's fine to offer to work with carriers, but for people right now, it's non-viable to use RCS with iMessage.
While there is no public documentation on Google's approach that I know of, there is also nothing to make me think Apple _can_ currently use it.
There is no authoritative mapping from an account to a single service (e.g. my email address as an Apple account vs a Google accounts vs a WhatsApp account), which also means that if all three of these services say they have an account for me and advertise a public key, there is no way to know that account or public key are authoritative. Google's implementation requires you to use both their client and their hosted service, meaning it almost certainly assumes that all E2E keys can be resolved authoritatively from a single source (Google's table).
You instead need a way to look up accounts in a secure and auditable way across multiple authoritative services, like the IETF Key Transparency work (that isn't complete yet).
It is also important to realize that Apple's support for alternative messaging systems besides iMessage is to meet carrier requirements, not user requirements. Apple's slow uptake on RCS AFAIK was because carriers themselves didn't care, until governments began to regulate it needed to be supported on handsets. The carrier RCS support almost universally is because Google wanted it for Android, which is also why Google's RCS hosted service is by far the most deployed by carriers.
The GSMA needs to define those carrier requirements for E2E RCS, and Apple has stated publicly they are working with them on that.
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.
Poor technical understanding. It's not "degradation."
They will use the iMessage protocol if supported by all clients. If not, they fall back to the next best thing supported by all clients whether RCS or SMS/MMS. In your case (possibly before iPhones supported RCS) the "next best thing" was apparently SMS/MMS.
This is the correct behavior.
I think you're also falling into the common trap of automatically thinking whatever Android supports is like, the correct and open standard.
In reality, RCS's history was an absolute mess of incompatible implementations, pushed and owned by some of by Apple's direct competitors. It's really not any more the "correct" standard than iMessage is and it does not support E2EE outside of Google's proprietary implementation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services#De...
At least RCS is an attempt at being a cross platform standard, even if it still sucks. iMessage is locked down to Apple devices only. Even if you reverse engineered the protocol you wouldn't be able to get it on Android because Apple will shut you down.
Best option is to just use a different app that just works on all platforms. No RCS, no iMessage.
At least RCS is an attempt at being a cross platform
standard, even if it still sucks.
The E2EE part, which does not exist in the RCS standard itself, is a proprietary Google thing with keys managed by Google. It is not open, and opening it is not trivial because somebody has to be an authoritative key source etc.
If not for that part I'd agree with you.
Best option is to just use a different app that just works
on all platforms. No RCS, no iMessage.
Well, I think there's obviously a huge place for these apps and there always has been. There is certainly nothing stopping you and your buddies from all standardizing on Signal, Telegram, or uh.... buying the rights to ICQ and resurrecting that or whatever.
The value of iMessage/RCS/SMS is that it is effectively universal. I just need somebody's mobile number and I can call or text them. They are (more or less) guaranteed to be able to receive that call or text. I can buy the most advanced iPhone or Pixel and I can send a text message to some dude on a 2001 flip phone in a jungle somewhere. That is a huge huge huge value.
The value you are talking about is all because of SMS. It's the lowest common denominator and IMO shouldn't be combined into a single app.
And there's definitely no reason why either iMessage or RCS E2EE need to be locked to a specific platform. Signal, WhatsApp, etc just work everywhere with no quirks when messaging people on different platforms.
All the other messenger apps you can use on iOS, like whatsapp, telegram, signal, etc, have no degradation with android users present.
Why can't apple publish an iMessage app for linux, windows, and android? Telegram and signal have no trouble maintaining applications for this, and they've got far less money than apple does.
RCS and SMS have been a total mess, yes, but every other chat protocol I've used has been better than iMessage in terms of supporting cross-platform communication. It's only iMessage which fails at this fundamental part of being a communication app, that of being available on multiple platforms.
I know you're going to say "the reason is spam, you need to pay apple $700 to get a device capable of iMessage, and they can ban by device, which deters spam"... which okay, fine, make iMessage be a $15/mo subscription to use on any non-iOS devices, that'd solve the spam problem just fine while still letting android users join back into the family group message chat again.
> All the other messenger apps you can use on iOS, like whatsapp, telegram, signal, etc, have no degradation with android users present
Yes, those all work and each require that you download and install their app, go through setup, potentially some identity verification steps, etc.
If you want that functionality, all of them are available as options.
What would make an Apple iMessage app for Android better than any of them? Unlike today, Android users would have the same experience for any of these other apps - completely excluded from conversations until everyone agrees upon an app, downloads it, creates an account and exchanges whatever addresses, nicknames or QR codes necessary to join a group.
The only thing that an Apple iMessage app buys the group is a better experience for the _Apple_ users. It actually increases lock-in to Apple's services, both because now Android users are signing up for Apple services to to communicate with their groups, and because Apple users know they can just reject other options because the Android people can "make iMessage work".
Right now, iOS users can't as easily understand the difference between iMessage and SMS, and I think it would make what's happening clearer to users if the apps were separate.
If you opened the "SMS" app to get your sms 2fa codes and talk to android users, and your "iMessage" app separately to talk to iPhone users, it would make people less mad when they open their iMessage app to iMessage, and instead weirdly get green bubble SMS.
It would be like if when I installed the "firefox" app on iOS it instead installed "safari" and touching the "firefox" icon opened "safari", and didn't have any firefox addons. Oh weird, sorry, bad example.
The point is not that iMessage is better than whatsapp, it's not. The point is that iPhone users try to use iMessage, and right now apple's weird SMS integration with it makes them accidentally use SMS and get annoyed.
The point is that iPhone users try to use
iMessage, and right now apple's weird SMS
integration with it makes them accidentally
use SMS and get annoyed.
I disagree that the "annoyed" people are "trying to use iMessage." I think they're just trying to message their friends. They are annoyed because the only common protocol supported by all parties in the conversation kind of sucks sometimes.
Apple has made the correct set of trade offs. If you just want to send a text message and don't care about the particulars you can do that and you'll automagically get the best possible experience based on the best lowest common denominator protocol whether it is iMessage, RCS, or SMS.
And if you and your buddies are savvy enough to want more than that you can install Signal or Whatsapp or whatever.
But that baseline out-of-the-box experience for mobile phones has always been "if I have somebody's number I can text/call them using my phone's out-of-the-box functionality and the network sorts out the details."
I think it's kind of nuts to throw that in the trash and you don't appreciate what a huge step backwards that would be for most of the people who buy and use phones.
Also, would you not agree that out of the box E2EE is a huge deal!?
But the keys and key exchange protocol for E2EE have to be managed by somebody. Signal, Google, Apple, whoever.
Indeed. Pretty much everyone I know is "texting" with their friends and using whatever is the default app on their phone. Some people will use Whatsapp for specific groups/events, but that default text app is very commonly used.
This reminds me of a conversation with an iPhone-using elderly relative who wanted to text friends in their retirement home:
ER: Why is it that when I send text messages to my friends they sometimes never get them?
Me: When you get messages are the bubbles green?
ER: Yes.
Me: Is there bad phone signal in this area?
ER: Yes.
Me: OK, that means your friends are using Android phones, so your messages are being sent by a method called 'SMS' which isn't very reliable, particularly when phone signal is poor.
ER: I don't really understand that. What I can I do to fix it?
Me: You and your friends could install an app such as Whatsapp or Signal and send your texts with that.
ER: No, I'm not installing an app!
Me: You could persuade your friends to buy iPhones.
ER: They won't do that.
Me: You could wait a few months and Apple will most likely activate a new system called "RCS" on iPhones which might make messages with your friends a bit more reliable.
being sent by a method called 'SMS' which isn't very reliable, particularly when phone signal is poor...
Not that it is relevant to overall point, but this is the exact opposite of my experience. I've been in plenty of situations where it is impossible to make calls because the signal is so bad, but communicating with SMS has worked perfectly. As my signal gets weaker and weaker, SMS is always the last thing to fail.
Interesting. I don't think I've noticed that, but I have run into various issues with SMS when there's poor signal.
On one occasion I could receive but could not send, just at the perfect time when someone was waiting for me and I was unable to get to them.
> They will use the iMessage protocol if supported by all clients.
Which would be perfectly reasonable if they allowed clients on other platforms. It just happens that the only clients are the ones that require buying Apple hardware. If the iMessage ptotocol is so great (I don't know enough about it to say), then great - either release an app for Android, or let others do it. Until then it's not a standard, open or otherwise.
If the iMessage ptotocol is so great (I don't know enough about it to say),
Well, it supports bigger images, read statuses, and fun effects that aren't a part of SMS. But what's important to a lot of people like me is that it's automatically E2EE if all recipients are on iMessage.
I would hope that anybody on HN considers that rather important.
Silicon Valley and engineers in general have really fucking changed if having a large portion of the phone-using population getting automagical E2EE is no longer a big deal.
Until then it's not a standard, open or otherwise.
Are you holding Google to this same standard? RCS is open-ish, but the E2EE extensions are proprietary and the key exchange is managed by Google. They are not opening that up, or at least they have not said that they are.
E2EE is not exactly trivial to make "open" because somebody has got to manage the key exchange. This is true for Signal, etc.... Signal handles the key exchange.
I would have a problem with Apple's conduct here if they locked you out of alternatives.
But I think their approach is correct. You get a default E2EE experience that works between Apple devices. But you are not prevented from any other messaging network you might want to use.
In some ways this is admittedly like Microsoft enforcing their web monopoly by making Internet Explorer the default browser back in the day, but I think it is different in crucial ways and I think E2EE is a worthy and necessary goal.
> Well, it supports bigger images, read statuses, and fun effects that aren't a part of SMS. But what's important to a lot of people like me is that it's automatically E2EE if all recipients are on iMessage.
Yes, obviously it's better than SMS. That's a 40-year old standard. I don't think I've sent an SMS to a human in over a decade. I mean is it better than other modern messenger protocols.
> Are you holding Google to this same standard? RCS is open-ish, but the E2EE extensions are proprietary and the key exchange is managed by Google. They are not opening that up, or at least they have not said that they are.
My objection to iMessage isn't that it's proprietary. It's that it's closed, and restricted to one platform.
> But I think their approach is correct. You get a default E2EE experience that works between Apple devices. But you are not prevented from any other messaging network you might want to use.
There is no way to justify restricting it to Apple devices aside from vendor lock-in. They say they care about E2EE, but then make it impossible to work with conversations with most devices in the world.
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.
As opposed to apples non open source solution that requires device authentication on apple owned servers... I think none of them really care about interoperability here, or they would release something open and able to do e2ee instead of this dance. I mean signal protocol is right there and available to everyone.
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.
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?
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.
So, explain exactly who Google is collaborating with by offering support for Jibe exclusively for certified Android devices with Google Play Services and only available through their proprietary messaging app.
> That said, if the positions were reversed, I suspect Google would also be more resistant to interoperability.
With Apple adding support to iOS for RCS, the shoe is on the other foot.
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.
The color of the bubble is, at least partially, a security feature for me. When it’s blue, I am certain there is a person on the other end, not a bot, spammer, ai, etc…
There are ways to send iMessages programmatically. Apple does check for spam, but it’s not foolproof. And of course, it won’t help you against a targeted attack.
I didn’t research it that much, but a good place to start would be AirMessage [1] or Mautrix [2]. Both of these require a Mac to work – it might work on a Hackintosh, though, or maybe using same tricks those forks of OpenHaystack use to run without a Mac (no pointers here, sorry). Hope this helps!
the experience from the opposite side is the relevant part here. I recall the many years I was sent iMessages but unable to remove my phone number so that I could receive sms messages on my new android phone. The user experience from iOS phones sending me messages I would never receive was "great".
But isn’t that the same when people and schools create effing Facebook groups and events or whatever they are called and find it hard to believe that people don’t use that crap. Or create WhatsApp groups and communities and so on and on.
Wow. I assumed you could use Whatsapp on the web but you literally can't. You have to have an Android or Iphone. I guess maybe there's a way to fake it with emulators on your computer but that's a lot of work that you shouldn't need to have to do.
Worse they require frequent logins on device to keep the with client working. Just making the account on device isn't enough. You have to maintain it as well.
The requirement is not exactly "iOS or Android", the requirement is "SIM card with valid phone number". Otherwise, you could use it on iPads and Android tablets, which you normally can't.
WhatsApp accounts are directly tied to a single phone number, both for user discovery (that way, you can simply message everybody in your contacts who has the app - just the way user expect it to work) and for spam prevention.
Creating a smartphone messaging app without this feature would be orders of magnitude more difficult, you simply can't get normie users to go around "hey, what's your WhatsApp user name?"
Is it possible to install WhatsApp on one of the three major 3rd-party AOSP-based operating systems (distros): Graphene OS, Calyx OS, or Lineage OS?
Each one has varying models for replacing functionality of the Google Play Services, and IIRC the Aurora store [1] allows for installation of apps from Google Play without a Google account.
It's not a combination of steps that would be accessible to the average user, but I think it should be possible to use WhatsApp without being an Apple or Google customer (nominally a customer of Google hardware---Pixel phones---if using Graphene or Calyx, and ultimately a customer of Meta/Facebook for WhatsApp itself).
It is. Works great without Google services (maybe pushes don’t work though, I can’t remember), or with microG.
> It's not a combination of steps that would be accessible to the average user
Tangential, but I’m thinking about starting a degoogled phone shop. Not sure if it’s a good business idea, but I think there is at least some demand there.
EDIT: aurorastore[.]org you link to is not the official site by the way. I’d not trust the APKs you get there. The official is https://auroraoss.com/ (and the downloads on F-Droid should be legit, too).
> Tangential, but I’m thinking about starting a degoogled phone shop. Not sure if it’s a good business idea, but I think there is at least some demand there.
Sounds like an incredible amount of pain for very little gain.
* Even in my bubble (CS nerds, Linux only, FOSS developers, ect.), only around 20% run custom ROMs on their phones. The demand is tiny.
* Even the very best UX ROMs (GrapheneOS on a modern Pixel, with full Google Services re-installed in a sandbox) will drive normies crazy. Google Lens and Android Auto are non-trivial to get running. Google Pay/Wallet is straight up impossible. And again, this is on a re-googled de-googled phone. Can't imagine how bad it's with a truely de-googled phone.
* If you go back into the walled garden defeated, you lose almost everything you did outside it. The few things you don't lose, you will have to work hard for.
The few customers you would get would create a high number of support requests, and be very unhappy with whatever you could do for them. Everybody not needing your support already runs LinageOS/GrapheneOS successfully on their own.
FWIW, microG seems to have fixed Play Integrity (again), so Google Pay is not out of the question now. (It’s still very painful though, even on LineageOS with Google services without a sandbox I can’t get it working – though it seems that my device was flagged specifically, and in theory it should work with some hacks.)
And I think Google Lens should work out of the box :thinking:
What's worse, and what people gloss over, is that you have to sync your contacts to Facebook/Meta in order to use WhatsApp. That's a lot of very private information that tells them a lot about you. There is a reason why Facebook paid bajillions for WhatsApp and maintains it, even though the communication is encrypted and there are no ads — it's not out of the goodness of their noble hearts.
But try telling this to anyone and watch their eyes glaze over in a matter of seconds.
You don't have to. At least on iOS I've managed to get away without doing it until now. WhatsApp does make it inconvenient to do stuff without syncing contacts though.
You only need an iCloud+ account not an Apple device.
Thus there’s zero hardware lock-in, an Android user could send invites. Though obviously iCloud is more appealing if you’re part of there ecosystem, you can just use it for file storage etc.
From the article, however, you don't technically need an apple device...an iCloud+ account is sufficient. That said, I don't know many people with iCloud+ who aren't already in the Apple ecosystem, and obviously anything Apple releases will obviously have some advantage to it if you use the hardware alone.
As much I deeply dislike Meta, it's not the same. I can simply open the Play store install facebook or Instagram. For the Apple walled garden, I need to spend $800+ USD
It feels like everyone's talking past each other in a big way on this thread. You don't need an Apple Device to participate in one of these events. At most you might need an iCloud account, which, (imo) is pretty much the same as Meta and crew.
Unrelated to that point, as other posters have called out, folks pretty consistently overstate the cost of Apple hardware relative to peers. You can spend $800 on a new iPhone 16, the latest release, or half that on an iPhone SE. Both of these options are available right now on Apple.com. This feels like saying you'd need to spend $1000+ on an Android because that's how much the newest Pixel costs.
The transition of the major social networks over the last 10-15 years -- from being a space for friends to interact to being a space to consume content produced by "unconnected" entities like influencers -- has created a huge opening for someone to claim the friends and family network. There is no one better positioned (at least in the U.S. where iPhones are the majority handset) than Apple.
reply