Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Partiful Calls Apple a Copycat for New Invites App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The point being is if no one has heard of them clearly they have bigger things to worry about lmao.
Masthead, body, footer. What guidelines did Apple break? Or if there is a masthead no other app can utilize a masthead?
Are you saying that once there's one app for inviting people to parties, nobody else is allowed to release another app for inviting people to parties?
Actually Hallmark has beem in business for more than 100 years...take a look at their logo. That logo dates to 1923.
Last edited:
Well, honestly, we should ask Apple
They are the ones that crafted that "no copycats" rule
Your question is appropriate though -- what exactly is supposed to happen?
Just all first mover advantage and then nobody else?
(other than Apple, who breaks their own rules all the time)
Ignoring the fact that Hallmark, the over 100 year old manufacturer of greeting cards and party invites has been using a crown in their logo for more than 100 years, did you notice the icon they used next to location for the party!
That pin icon was invented by a Google employee in 2005. Are you going to complain that Partiful stole the map pin icon?
I'm not saying it, Apple is saying it.
Search the Apple Developer forum, lots of apps are rejected for violating this rule. Does anyone seriously believe that Apple applies this rule to Apple's apps with the same scope and vigor that they apply it to third-party apps?
Indeed, Apple does this so often that not long ago there was literally a vernacular among the Apple community--"Sherlocking"--which meant Apple copying and subsequently killing a successful feature or application.
As to the rule, I don't feel strongly one way or the other as long as Apple is being consistent and fair. If Apple can copy, then everyone should be able to copy. If others cannot copy, then Apple shouldn't be allowed to either.
Makes no sense. So if there is a navigation on the app store, nobody else can release a navigation app? Or that the design elements of the navigation app can't be copied. Not something that looks like a masthead, body and footer.
OMG Apple have used an idea that anyone could've come up with and is logical...they're a copycat!!!!
Lets be clear, Apple stopped innovating since iphone X. Apple just copies and "kind of refines".
If your app name ends with “ful” or “ly” then I don’t care what happens to it.
I was the product manager for Mac OS 8.5, which introduced Sherlock. I can assure you that in no way was Watson considered as an example for us to copy.
Have you ever heard of a website called HarvardConnection? Most people have never heard of it. But Mark Zuckerberg made a copycat of it called Facebook.
Thieves don't just steal from big and popular entities. Thieves also often steal from small and unknown entities.
My apologies .. went over my head in all the messages flying around on here today
👍
Sad, but what are you gonna do? Apple owns the monopoly, and they seemingly own the courts too.
Great article from TechCrunch about this vile practice from Apple
The apps that Apple sherlocked at WWDC 2024 | TechCrunch
Here's a list of third-party apps that were Sherlocked by Apple at this year's WWDC.
techcrunch.com
I use Partiful all the time, it’s definitely an app rapidly growing in popularity. I gotta say, the characterization that Invites is one of many competing event apps diminishes just how similar Invites and Partiful are.
Paperless, Invitation Maker, Evite and Punchbowl honestly all seem similar to each other, in that they revolve around designing and sending a card like you would in a letter, just digitally. Partiful has gained traction with a unique, streamlined approach and, notably, Invites looks and behave almost identically.
Paperless, Invitation Maker, Evite and Punchbowl honestly all seem similar to each other, in that they revolve around designing and sending a card like you would in a letter, just digitally. Partiful has gained traction with a unique, streamlined approach and, notably, Invites looks and behave almost identically.
I’m gonna say it, I use Partiful all the time for event invites. The first thing I thought when I opened up Apple invites is how insanely similar the user interface is to Partiful. It’s a copy.
The developers behind well-known event app and website Partiful today suggested that Apple was in violation of its own App Store guidelines for the release of the new Invites app.
On social media, Partiful shared a screenshot of rule 4.1, which covers copycat apps.
Partiful is designed to allow users to send customized event invitations with just a few steps, and it has a feature set that is similar to Apple's new Invites app. Partiful still has options that set it apart from Invites, such as better cross-platform functionality. Unlike Invites, Partiful does not require event attendees to enter an email address to confirm their event attendance, and invitations can be created through an app or from the web.
Apple lets invitations be sent to non-Apple users, but an email address is required. Creating an invite is tied to an iCloud+ subscription, so it is not free for anyone to use like Partiful.
When Apple creates an app or a feature that has functionality found in a third-party app, it is referred to as sherlocking. The name dates back to a "Sherlock" search tool in OS X that Apple enhanced with features that were cribbed from a third-party app called Watson. Watson's developers accused Apple of copying the product without compensation, and from then on, sherlocking has been used to describe apps that are supplanted by Apple.
There are similarities between Partiful and Invites, but event-focused apps and websites are a popular category and there are services that pre-date Partiful too, like Evite. Checking the App Store shows no shortage of popular event planning apps, including Paperless, Invitation Maker, and Punchbowl, in addition to Evite and Partiful, so there is no clear indication that Apple set out to copy Partiful or any app in particular.
Article Link: Partiful Calls Apple a Copycat for New Invites App
I remember reading about this when it happened. There was absolutely zero doubt in my mind, and in the minds of every single other person who I spoke with who also read the article and compared the programs side-by-side, that apple had directly copied Watson. Just shameful. Your statement is simply beyond belief. I just checked again for the first time in years, they look virtually the same. Everyone can see for themselves: https://512pixels.net/2013/12/the-brushed-metal-diaries-sherlock/
IIRC, after Wood had went public with his complaint, he reported that someone at Apple called him to offer him a job, which he declined. If Apple did nothing wrong, why would they do such a thing? I believed at the time it was an admission of guilt, possibly to prevent a possible lawsuit. It was my first experience up to that point as an enthusiastic mac user of Apple the corporation.
Disappointed that so many are defending obvious theft.
What really angers me about this is that Apple didn't at all need to steal this. They're not at all lacking resources to develop their own original solution from scratch. Apple has tons of money, either to roll their own app with original work, or buy someone else's.
It's also true that, as others pointed out, this invite app would probably just be another feature to lock people into iCloud and also get some more subs. In other words, it's not special bleeding-edge tech that they can't afford to either do themselves or purchase outright. It's probably not even worth that much.
It's bad when anyone steals. But I can at least understand when a poor single mom steals food. The act is still wrong regardless of circumstances, but one can be sympathetic. But when an astonishingly profitable company lifts work from a small group of developers, imo, it's especially morally disgusting and extremely evil.
To clarify for the people who keep using the term "Sherlocked": at the time, it was obvious all the mac users in my orbit that Apple did copy Watson. It was shameful then, and even more shameful now.
Same layout, same font, positions of text and icons...even virtually same icons. Enough. These are deliberate design choices.
Apple is aware of their own rules. Years ago, a portion of an app I submitted was denied for the reason that it resembled one of Apple's own apps too closely. Partiful is righ, they should follow the rules they impose on everyone else.
What really angers me about this is that Apple didn't at all need to steal this. They're not at all lacking resources to develop their own original solution from scratch. Apple has tons of money, either to roll their own app with original work, or buy someone else's.
It's also true that, as others pointed out, this invite app would probably just be another feature to lock people into iCloud and also get some more subs. In other words, it's not special bleeding-edge tech that they can't afford to either do themselves or purchase outright. It's probably not even worth that much.
It's bad when anyone steals. But I can at least understand when a poor single mom steals food. The act is still wrong regardless of circumstances, but one can be sympathetic. But when an astonishingly profitable company lifts work from a small group of developers, imo, it's especially morally disgusting and extremely evil.
To clarify for the people who keep using the term "Sherlocked": at the time, it was obvious all the mac users in my orbit that Apple did copy Watson. It was shameful then, and even more shameful now.
Same layout, same font, positions of text and icons...even virtually same icons. Enough. These are deliberate design choices.
Apple is aware of their own rules. Years ago, a portion of an app I submitted was denied for the reason that it resembled one of Apple's own apps too closely. Partiful is righ, they should follow the rules they impose on everyone else.