6 ms·

>Freeform is an all-new app available starting today, included in the latest versions of iOS, iPadOS, and macOS. >A Collaboration Space : Whether a user is wor

by jasode 4y ago

>Freeform is an all-new app available starting today, included in the latest versions of iOS, iPadOS, and macOS. >A Collaboration Space : Whether a user is working at a desk or on the go, Freeform is incredibly useful for standalone projects or when collaborating with others. With the ability to work with up to 100 collaborators in the same board, Freeform creates a shared space for creativity when working on group projects or even planning a vacation with friends. Freeform takes advantage of the new collaboration features in Messages, This limits collaboration to those in the Apple ecosystem. But many people would want to collaborate with Android users. As analogy, Apple has wall-garden Facetime and also Group Facetime video chat for iOS users but I've only seen non-family members set up Zoom because you need to invite both Android+Apple to the video conference. And Apple Messages chat app can have group chats that include Android users because it has fallback to SMS.

amelius 4y ago
Yes, it's an egocentric company, that's for sure, but most people here already know that.
achow 4y ago
Though it says 'designed for collaboration' it is good to have infinite page for one's own content. Also it would interesting to see how responsive the collaborative whiteboard would be. Online multiuser whiteboards are really useful when one sees in real-time the action taken by other online users - text being edited, object being dragged by remote users, etc.
zitterbewegung 4y ago
Yes, that's the point. Apple ties you into its ecosystem by creating apps that only work on their platform and in this case pressuring your friends to also buy from them. This isn't anything new. This app isn't trivial to create so it has to be funded by them somehow. If another company created an app similar to this then they would follow probably a different pattern which would be to first release on iOS, pay for it by some subscription model and then eventually have an option on Android if the company doesn't get bought out by Apple / Android or get Sherlocked.
- reeeeee 4y ago
  What does "getting Sherlocked" mean?
  - ofcrpls 4y ago
    Long-form answer with a story from the dev who got Sherlocked first https://www.karelia.com/blog/the-long-story-behind-karel.html https://www.karelia.com/blog/the-long-story-behind-karel.htm...
  - rubyfan 4y ago
    From wikipedia… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) Advocates of Watson made by Karelia Software, LLC claim that Apple copied their product without permission, compensation, or attribution in producing Sherlock 3. Some disagree with this claim, stating that Sherlock 3 was the natural evolution of Sherlock 2, and that Watson was obviously meant to have some relation to Sherlock by its very name. The phenomenon of Apple releasing a feature that supplants or obviates third-party software is so well known that being Sherlocked has become an accepted term used within the Mac and iOS developer community.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    Usually something to do with running a tumblr full of Benedict Cumberbatch/Martin Freeman fanfic. But in this case, it refers to the fact that there used to be a Mac app called Watson (made by Karelia Software) that let you search all your personal files. Then Apple added an OS feature called Sherlock that did the same thing and ripped the rug out from under the third party developer. (Sherlock has since been replaced by Spotlight in more recent MacOS versions) By analogy, anyone making software in the Mac ecosystem (or any ecosystem really) risks being ‘Sherlocked’ by having their idea ripped off and turned into an OS feature.
    - a4isms 4y ago
      Calling it ”sherlocked” is recency bias on our part. Apple learned it from Microsoft, who took a thing that happened from time to time and operationalized it into a full-blown business strategy. One by one, Microsoft took aim at successful DOS and Windows applications, especially business applications, and displaced them. Lotus… WordPerfect… Everyone, really. Unless your app was for a niche too specialized to be worth the hassle, Microsoft wanted to use you for market research and then either buy you, buy your competitor, or clone you.
lolsowrong 4y ago
Since iOS15, you have been able to invite Android and PC users to FaceTime calls.
- ubercow13 4y ago
  What if someone in the group on Android or PC wants to initiate the call?
  - ubermonkey 4y ago
    They should use something else, or switch to iOS. Facetime is a feature of the Apple ecosystem.
    - zmmmmm 4y ago
      > Facetime is a feature of the Apple ecosystem. Let's rephrase that: Facetime is arbitrarily limited to the Apple ecosystem by Apple's desire to weaponise it for anti-competitive reasons. If Apple published the protocol there would be 15 clients on other platforms overnight without Apple lifting a finger.
      - ubermonkey 4y ago
        I do not think you understand what "anti-competitive" means. It is a key aspect of of business that manufacturers add features to their products that other makers do not have, or do not execute as well. To insist that one such maker share their feature with everyone else is bananas. If you don't like Apple, great. Buy something else. But to then come back and whine that you can't use Apple services without using an Apple device is ASTONISHINGLY entitled. Apple is nowhere close to a monopoly. They are therefore free to establish whatever platform rules they like. Don't like it? Use something else; we live in an age of wonders where there are several other platforms, and several other video-calling tools, available to chose from. This logic suggests that any feature of any platform should be made open to all other platforms, even competitor platforms. That doesn't make any sense to me. Creating a better mousetrap involves creating features on YOUR product that other makers don't have on THEIR product. There are plenty of other video calling options. In this particular case, sure, it's true that Facetime works far, far better than any other option I've seen. But a good chunk of that is doubtless due to the fact that Apple controls both hardware and software for Facetime. It's easier to establish a high quality experience if you have that control -- and much harder to ensure it when you don't.
lxgr 4y ago
Facetime works in the browser as well these days. I‘ve never used it like that myself though, so no idea if it is actually usable.
tomp 4y ago
Alternative viewpoint: This enhances collaboration to the standard of the Apple ecosystem. Many people want to avoid "the Android/Windows/shitty third party app experience".
- nullwarp 4y ago
  This is a terrible viewpoint as all it does is imply that if apple doesn't make it, then it's shitty?
  - tomp 4y ago
    I wish it wasn’t! Borne out of experience.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    It's not a viewpoint, it's an observation :)
  - a4isms 4y ago
    What the comment says is that the third-party app ecosystem on Android is shitty. Which is not the same thing as saying that Android itself is shitty, or that Google’s apps are shitty. Just that for various reasons, statistically, 90% of third-party android apps are shitty. This is absolutely true, but then again, judging an ecosystem by 90% of its apps is probably not very helpful. 90% of everything is crud, as Phil Sturgeon remarked. App ecosystems have winner-take-all economics, so 90% of the apps are poorly funded things thrown into the world like notes in bottles thrown into the sea. If we lower the barriers to entry, we necessarily get more crud. The big question for a user is not whether 70%, 80%, or 90% of the apps are crud, it’s whether there are enough good apps for each user to have a good experience, and whether those good apps are discoverable. The open web has created a world where 99.9999999% of all web pages are shit. But we don’t care right now, because HN isn’t one of them, and making it open makes it easier for the HNs of the world to be created. If there was a “web gatekeeper” charging “developer membership” subscriptions, there would have been fewer shitty web pages, but no HN or raganwald.com either. —- I leave it as an exercise for the reader to ask whether Apple’s ecosystem is also 90% crud. It could be the case, but if you find the apps you need and they’re excellent, how would you ever know what the other five million iOS fart generators and home-brew to-do list apps look like?
suumcuique 4y ago
Basically useless for actual collaboration. Hope it's at least good enough to present my tablet as a whiteboard while sharing my laptop screen in a meeting.
pipingdog 4y ago
> This limits collaboration to those in the Apple ecosystem. Not only that, it limits collaboration to those running only the newest version of iOS/MacOS.
Alifatisk 4y ago
Users without an iDevice can still join a FaceTime call.

by jasode 4y ago

amelius 4y ago

Yes, it's an egocentric company, that's for sure, but most people here already know that.

achow 4y ago

Though it says 'designed for collaboration' it is good to have infinite page for one's own content. Also it would interesting to see how responsive the collaborative whiteboard would be. Online multiuser whiteboards are really useful when one sees in real-time the action taken by other online users - text being edited, object being dragged by remote users, etc.

zitterbewegung 4y ago

Yes, that's the point. Apple ties you into its ecosystem by creating apps that only work on their platform and in this case pressuring your friends to also buy from them. This isn't anything new. This app isn't trivial to create so it has to be funded by them somehow. If another company created an app similar to this then they would follow probably a different pattern which would be to first release on iOS, pay for it by some subscription model and then eventually have an option on Android if the company doesn't get bought out by Apple / Android or get Sherlocked.

reeeeee 4y ago
What does "getting Sherlocked" mean?
- ofcrpls 4y ago
  Long-form answer with a story from the dev who got Sherlocked first https://www.karelia.com/blog/the-long-story-behind-karel.html https://www.karelia.com/blog/the-long-story-behind-karel.htm...
- rubyfan 4y ago
  From wikipedia… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software) Advocates of Watson made by Karelia Software, LLC claim that Apple copied their product without permission, compensation, or attribution in producing Sherlock 3. Some disagree with this claim, stating that Sherlock 3 was the natural evolution of Sherlock 2, and that Watson was obviously meant to have some relation to Sherlock by its very name. The phenomenon of Apple releasing a feature that supplants or obviates third-party software is so well known that being Sherlocked has become an accepted term used within the Mac and iOS developer community.
- jameshart 4y ago
  Usually something to do with running a tumblr full of Benedict Cumberbatch/Martin Freeman fanfic. But in this case, it refers to the fact that there used to be a Mac app called Watson (made by Karelia Software) that let you search all your personal files. Then Apple added an OS feature called Sherlock that did the same thing and ripped the rug out from under the third party developer. (Sherlock has since been replaced by Spotlight in more recent MacOS versions) By analogy, anyone making software in the Mac ecosystem (or any ecosystem really) risks being ‘Sherlocked’ by having their idea ripped off and turned into an OS feature.
  - a4isms 4y ago
    Calling it ”sherlocked” is recency bias on our part. Apple learned it from Microsoft, who took a thing that happened from time to time and operationalized it into a full-blown business strategy. One by one, Microsoft took aim at successful DOS and Windows applications, especially business applications, and displaced them. Lotus… WordPerfect… Everyone, really. Unless your app was for a niche too specialized to be worth the hassle, Microsoft wanted to use you for market research and then either buy you, buy your competitor, or clone you.

lolsowrong 4y ago

Since iOS15, you have been able to invite Android and PC users to FaceTime calls.

ubercow13 4y ago
What if someone in the group on Android or PC wants to initiate the call?
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  They should use something else, or switch to iOS. Facetime is a feature of the Apple ecosystem.
  - zmmmmm 4y ago
    > Facetime is a feature of the Apple ecosystem. Let's rephrase that: Facetime is arbitrarily limited to the Apple ecosystem by Apple's desire to weaponise it for anti-competitive reasons. If Apple published the protocol there would be 15 clients on other platforms overnight without Apple lifting a finger.
    - ubermonkey 4y ago
      I do not think you understand what "anti-competitive" means. It is a key aspect of of business that manufacturers add features to their products that other makers do not have, or do not execute as well. To insist that one such maker share their feature with everyone else is bananas. If you don't like Apple, great. Buy something else. But to then come back and whine that you can't use Apple services without using an Apple device is ASTONISHINGLY entitled. Apple is nowhere close to a monopoly. They are therefore free to establish whatever platform rules they like. Don't like it? Use something else; we live in an age of wonders where there are several other platforms, and several other video-calling tools, available to chose from. This logic suggests that any feature of any platform should be made open to all other platforms, even competitor platforms. That doesn't make any sense to me. Creating a better mousetrap involves creating features on YOUR product that other makers don't have on THEIR product. There are plenty of other video calling options. In this particular case, sure, it's true that Facetime works far, far better than any other option I've seen. But a good chunk of that is doubtless due to the fact that Apple controls both hardware and software for Facetime. It's easier to establish a high quality experience if you have that control -- and much harder to ensure it when you don't.

lxgr 4y ago

Facetime works in the browser as well these days. I‘ve never used it like that myself though, so no idea if it is actually usable.

tomp 4y ago

Alternative viewpoint: This enhances collaboration to the standard of the Apple ecosystem. Many people want to avoid "the Android/Windows/shitty third party app experience".

nullwarp 4y ago
This is a terrible viewpoint as all it does is imply that if apple doesn't make it, then it's shitty?
- tomp 4y ago
  I wish it wasn’t! Borne out of experience.
- coldtea 4y ago
  It's not a viewpoint, it's an observation :)
- a4isms 4y ago
  What the comment says is that the third-party app ecosystem on Android is shitty. Which is not the same thing as saying that Android itself is shitty, or that Google’s apps are shitty. Just that for various reasons, statistically, 90% of third-party android apps are shitty. This is absolutely true, but then again, judging an ecosystem by 90% of its apps is probably not very helpful. 90% of everything is crud, as Phil Sturgeon remarked. App ecosystems have winner-take-all economics, so 90% of the apps are poorly funded things thrown into the world like notes in bottles thrown into the sea. If we lower the barriers to entry, we necessarily get more crud. The big question for a user is not whether 70%, 80%, or 90% of the apps are crud, it’s whether there are enough good apps for each user to have a good experience, and whether those good apps are discoverable. The open web has created a world where 99.9999999% of all web pages are shit. But we don’t care right now, because HN isn’t one of them, and making it open makes it easier for the HNs of the world to be created. If there was a “web gatekeeper” charging “developer membership” subscriptions, there would have been fewer shitty web pages, but no HN or raganwald.com either. —- I leave it as an exercise for the reader to ask whether Apple’s ecosystem is also 90% crud. It could be the case, but if you find the apps you need and they’re excellent, how would you ever know what the other five million iOS fart generators and home-brew to-do list apps look like?

suumcuique 4y ago

Basically useless for actual collaboration. Hope it's at least good enough to present my tablet as a whiteboard while sharing my laptop screen in a meeting.

pipingdog 4y ago

> This limits collaboration to those in the Apple ecosystem. Not only that, it limits collaboration to those running only the newest version of iOS/MacOS.

Alifatisk 4y ago

Users without an iDevice can still join a FaceTime call.