Is the quality the same or even close? Is it easy and obvious how to share such links?
I barely ever FaceTime anyone. Just now after reading your comment I opened the FaceTime app. It has two big buttons:
- Create Link
- New FaceTime
And it showed a balloon tip under create link that said:
“Invite Anyone to a Call Friends with Android and Windows devices can join a FaceTime call if you share a link.”
So yes, seems they actually made it about as obvious as it can be. Maybe even more.
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.
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.
--
Usually a friend just DMs me and tells me to show up somewhere.
I know the eternal September has been talked about to death at this point, but it continually baffles me.
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?
It does prefer contacting via email, so it did an email verification via mailed PIN, and then attached that email to the guest list from the link.
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.)
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.
Adults don't really give a fuck as I can tell about it.
Adults don't really give a fuck about lots of what children care about.
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ER: That's no good, I need to fix it now.
etc. etc.
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.
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),
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Standardized interoperable E2EE
You don't get to arbitrarily send messages to the device of somebody on the other side of the world unless a 3rd party is providing those services.
So yes, not foolproof.
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.
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.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.andr...
Why is that bad?
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.
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?
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 they now make it possible to invite people in your radius they even get a share of dating apps.
In the future they can change the approach too and
both remove and restrict features
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.
s/Apple Invites/Meta Messenger groups/
s/Apple Invites/Facebook events/
s/Apple Invites/WhatsApp groups/
s/Apple Invites/Telegram groups
s/Apple Invites/doodle.com/
What are you proposing instead? That these should all be decentralised/federated? SMS/RCS? Matrix? email? ICS?
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".
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.
I did read the press release, and this seems pretty open.
From https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/introducing-apple-inv...
"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."
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?
With all due respect, seeing anything more malicious is just extending your own emotions against apple to the topic.
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.
But now you also need to convince a random person that they should switch,
From https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/introducing-apple-inv... --
"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 I do not follow when you claim that I would need to convince all my friends to "switch." Can you elaborate?
Worked really, really well for Facebook for about a decade or so.
> Also - non-Apple users have been able to join FaceTime calls via. A link for several years.
I had no idea! TIL!
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.
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.