[esolyt]

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.

[sharpshadow]

I would rather join an Apple Invite Group than a WhatsApp Group.

If they now make it possible to invite people in your radius they even get a share of dating apps.

[fsflover]

How about a Matrix group? https://matrix.org

[echelon_musk]

I'm sure Matrix users are a great dating pool.

[fsflover]

Indeed, they're likely more educated than the average.

[pinoy420]

Why is this a problem?

Typical HN downvoting because of “muh vendor lockin” without giving an answer as to why exactly this matters for the general population.

It is a fantastic business model.

[abenga]

Because we want to interact with our friends and family without being forced to switch platforms. I don't care about Apple's business model.

[what-the-grump]

So interact with them? This doesn’t stop you in any way.

[therealfigtree]

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).

[Longhanks]

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.

[thoroughburro]

Help, I followed your advice and alienated a bunch of people I need in my life. Will you support me now??

[GiorgioG]

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.

[pinoy420]

Got to love the HN bubble. Anti anti apple is immediate downvote even with a sensible argument like yourself…

[adrr]

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.

[onion2k]

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.

[treesknees]

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.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.andr...

[2] https://support.apple.com/guide/music-web/welcome/web

[ejoso]

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.

[mjamil]

Why would the stewards of a walled garden want other gardens (walled or otherwise) be as good as theirs? What moral or economic imperative exists for such a belief?

Why is that bad?

[TeMPOraL]

> 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.

[krger]

>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?