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?
Apple ships iMessage in the default messaging app. A large portion users are probably unaware what "iMessage" even is, just that blue bubbles are "better."
Microsoft got dinged for shipping IE by default, and so should Apple. Maybe you can argue Apple's not big enough yet, but I reckon we just need to wait a few years (87% of US teens use iPhones [0]).
Fair enough, agreed that social groups dominate the dynamic more-so (e.g. any country other than US). But being the default, pre-installed, and only app with SMS integration on iOS is an unfair position to compete from, especially when iOS is now slowly gaining dominant market position in the US.
It's not really how it works for a lot of users in the US. As I get it with the more social demographics, most use different apps for messaging for different contexts. social media like twitter or instagram for more public casual chatting with strangers, maybe private messages on said apps for growing relationships, then for more personal stuff some mutual messenger app.
social demographics just use the chat that is closest to whatever they like to do online. iMessage is more of a "it's always there if I need it" thing as I get it, not so much something chosen out of confusion -- the social demographic is quite good at compartmentalizing their lives across many apps.
I agree. Something other people aren't mentioning - the default iOS Contacts app will automatically switch your messaging and voice call shortcuts to use an alternate platform, per-contact. There's no user interaction required to do this. A lot of people in these threads conflate iMessage, SMS, and MMS - the idea that iPhone users are "locked into" iMessage is absurd. This feature has been in place for many years. [0]
IMO, the buy-in for iMessage is an iPhone. If you contrast a $429 new iPhone with the buy-in required for other mainstream apps (share and license your private data + metadata with advertising companies in perpetuity), $429 doesn't seem unreasonable at all; but if you prefer to pay with your data instead, all platforms (including the iPhone) provide an option to do so via options like FB Messenger[1] and WhatsApp[2].
If Apple were to remove these alternative options, along with SMS/MMS, and support only iMessage communication - there would be a much better support for the claim that they "lock in" their users.
iMessage is competing unfairly, as the default, pre-installed, SMS-integrated app on iOS. Being hardware-attested and limited to the dominant US smartphone OS exacerbates this.
Most other countries are using some other messaging app, so clearly these aren't super significant hurdles. I agree "lock-in" is strong wording that probably doesn't apply to iMessage. But you cannot argue that iMessage is competing fairly with the likes of FB Messenger / Whatsapp / Telegram / Signal.
Microsoft barely got a slap on the wrist from the DoJ in the end. Market competition from Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome, along with industry and cultural support for browser standards, was the ultimate remedy, and that would have happened with or without the DoJ. The original suit was brought by Netscape who were charging $40 for a browser license at the time. It was a dead end business model and MS was ultimately right when they argued in the nineties that browser tech was so fundamental it needed to be integrated into the OS.
I love iMessage because it has a good feature set for family group chats (photo sharing is stellar), but I’m also happy with all the innovation, choice, and competition on features and governance provided by Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, et al, each of which have their own strengths and have to respond to improvements by the others. The worst thing that could happen to innovation is if we were all using the same iMessage protocol forced into the stewardship of a DoJ mandated standards body.
I really can’t understand the obsession with default SMS functionality. Other than 2FA codes or setting up Uber on a new phone who gets an SMS more than once a month?
Microsoft didn't get dinged for shipping IE by default. They got dinged because, to promote IE, they engaged in a lot of fairly nefarious things, forcing their OEM partners not to install other browsers, for instance.
It wasn't just "you can't have a default web browser in IE", and reducing that case to that is ahistorical.
You literally cannot install another default messaging app on iOS with SMS integration. There are no OEM partners to speak of on iOS. If iOS reaches 90%+ market share, why shouldn't it be treated the same as Microsoft?
It's not the same thing. If Microsoft was selling both the hardware and the software. IIRC the US antitrust case was mainly based on restrictions MS imposed on the OEMs. No OEMs, no issue really.
Which sort of makes sense. You don't technically don't have the obligation to make your platform open or support specific APIs regardless of your market share.
MS was prosecuted because they pressured OEMs into not installing a different browser by making that a requirement to be able to buy Windows licenses.
The alleged illegal act here was the combination of them 1) leveraging the power they had over OEMs to 2) prevent them from installing a different browser in an effort to 3) kill competing browsers.
It was never just about having a default browser, it was about the combination of 1, 2 and 3. There were some other incidents other than the browser that involved elements 1, 2 and 3, but the logic behind it was similar.
I say “alleged” because MS won on appeal and the DOJ decided to settle.
Apple on the other hand, just has a default messaging app. They’re not using their power to block other messaging apps with the intent to kill them, nor are they pressuring other parties to do or not do an act to protect their default messaging app.
The only thing that comes closest to the MS case is that Apple told carriers that they can’t have their bloatware preinstalled from the get go with the first iPhone. The problem however is that Apple, when they imposed that restriction, had no power over carriers, they were just entering the phone market after all.
If anything the carriers had power over Apple, but they still choose to play ball despite this restriction.
I’d they’d tried to do that now, then it’d be a different story, because now Apple has quite some market dominance and it could be an antitrust issue.
That’s why carriers are free to impose limitations on certain functionality like hotspot use, because if Apple would force carriers, especially in a heavy handed way, then it could be explained as abusing their power.
Apple is mainly lucky for always having done Apple things, even when they were small in the respective market.
A lot of what Apple does, Apple has done from the beginning when they were insignificant in the context of a market. They couldn’t do introduce many of those things now while they’re so big.
So for all intents and purposes Apple is treated the same as MS.
Whoa, I had no idea (obviously). Note, that article is out of date, instead of the G icon, now it's a four-square icon. I don't know why they're not just using a standard hamburger icon, but whatever.
Key point: airlines are more powerful than normal banks - they are central banks, with complete control of the money (point) supply. On the trilemma [0], they chose to control the exchange rate (points to flight value) and have an independent monetary policy (how many points to issue to flyers or other buyers).
When fliers realize points-miles are a fool’s errand, they will simply ignore them and go back to only considering price, flight time, number of stops, and customer service.
Points-miles are a way for airlines to lock and keep their customer base while treating their customers like cattle.
No they are not central banks. Central banks issue a currency and sovereign debt on behalf of some nation and are generally responsible for the financial regulation, fiscal and monetary policy and financial stability of that sovereign nation.
That really is nothing whatsoever to do with what an airline does.
Fiat-backed stablecoins have one of the most reliable business models out there: collect money from depositors, buy short-term treasuries with rate X, and distribute interest to holders at rate Y < X (usually Y=0). Excess interest is pure profit.
For depositors, this is safer than a typical bank subject to bank runs - AS LONG AS the issuer actually holds the backing treasuries.
EDIT: Caveat here is the non-treasury part of the stablecoin backing reserve, e.g. reserves put in a bank. If the underlying bank has a bank run, the stablecoin has a bank run too (effectively without any FDIC insurance, since all stablecoin holders are lumped together, easily exceeding the $250k limit).
Point taken. But since it's short-term, as long as they delay deposits for a short time period, there is no problem.
Comparison with bank deposits: Consider March this year, when Circle-issued USDC stablecoin had a "bank run". It wasn't because of their treasury holdings, but because they put reserves in Silicon Valley Bank, which had a bank run. A transitive bank run, if you will. It only recovered because of FDIC insurance, which went above and beyond their legal $250k/person limit.
Treasuries are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, without any per-person or monetary limits.
Isn't the whole thing conceptually the same as or very close to a money market fund then (absent the specific regulations there)? What is the advantage?
I mean conceptually this is just VUSXX (with a lower interest rate probably), but you can buy something online with it through a PayPal checkout page, or send it to a friend through the PayPal app, or send it across borders in seconds. I do think that has value from an ease-of-use standpoint.
That only helps if the treasuries get redeemed by then (and it also isn't quite what people would expect in terms of liquidity, I suppose. Kind of similar to other options then, e.g., looking at some recent situations, FDIC stepping in also doesn't seem to take forever for retail).
Sure, but doesn't that business model kind of exist then in the form of money market funds (and somewhat related in bank deposits) anyway? What's the new thing from a customer and business perspective?
US treasuries are probably the one thing you can liquidate in huge quantities at par at almost any time. I suppose you're vulnerable to stupid duration mismatch issues like SVB.
If everyone in the street knows you are under pressure, watch what happens - even getting $0.9999 back on the $ of your "deposit" would probably have people being upset. And 7 days to get your money is probably longer that what people expect.
You wouldn’t need to wait 7 days. The price of a short-term treasuries is purely based off of the current interest rates. Given that expectations for rates are generally priced in over a 7 day period, there is very little risk.
> For depositors, this is safer than a typical bank subject to bank runs - AS LONG AS the issuer actually holds the backing treasuries.
And duration is really short, and rates don't shoot up too much. (You have no credit risk (as long as Congress keeps getting their act together wrt the debt ceiling), but still have rates risk, as measured by duration.)
Correct me if I'm wrong:
- create & share invitations: must have iCloud+
- iCloud shared albums: barebones upload/download on non-Apple devices
- apple music: cross-platform, must be subscribed
- RSVP: cross-platform (Apple account req'd)
So yes, it "works" outside the Apple ecosystem, but missing features to encourage lock-in.