Looks similar. I have not heard of the app. Wonder whether they will go for a lawsuit. Apple's Invites app should have been made available for all iPhone users.
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
This forum never disappoints and I knew exactly what I was going to read when I saw the headline. If the roles were reversed with Apple having an app copied, there would be calls to ban the copycat app and sue them into the ground. I love my Apple products as much as the next person, but I'll never get this persona people put on to protect and defend any unscrupulous Apple might be caught out performing. They set the rules themselves and have ripped off a small app that many here claim to have never heard of. Undoubtedly they'll win the day though as a multiple trillion dollar company with unlimited legal reources. Hopefully the vicyims in this get a few million downloads from the publicity at least.
I feel the coverage did a disservice to the broader discussion around this situation.
The article framed Partiful as the instigator in accusing Apple but didn’t mention a key detail—that Apple had nominated Partiful for App Store App of the Year for Cultural Impact, 2024.
developer.apple.com
This omission, along with the lack of discussion around Apple’s competitive advantages—such as access to analytics and control over the App Store—missed an opportunity to explore a deeper, more pressing issue.
The article framed Partiful as the instigator in accusing Apple but didn’t mention a key detail—that Apple had nominated Partiful for App Store App of the Year for Cultural Impact, 2024.
App Store Awards 2024 - Apple Developer
For over a decade, we’ve taken a moment at the end of the year to celebrate the very best and most impactful apps and games on the App Store — and the developers behind them.
This omission, along with the lack of discussion around Apple’s competitive advantages—such as access to analytics and control over the App Store—missed an opportunity to explore a deeper, more pressing issue.
Apple is acting as a monopolistic bully to smaller developers. Those chiming in to defend it are just sticking their heads in the sand.
I feel the coverage did a disservice to the broader discussion around this situation.
The article framed Partiful as the instigator in accusing Apple but didn’t mention a key detail—that Apple had nominated Partiful for App Store App of the Year for Cultural Impact, 2024.
App Store Awards 2024 - Apple Developer
For over a decade, we’ve taken a moment at the end of the year to celebrate the very best and most impactful apps and games on the App Store — and the developers behind them.
This omission, along with the lack of discussion around Apple’s competitive advantages—such as access to analytics and control over the App Store—missed an opportunity to explore a deeper, more pressing issue.
Bingo
This is sort of like when Amazon suddenly has their own Amazon Basics version of something.
They flat out "steal it" after seeing the metrics on how well it was doing
Will you do me a favor? Outline the elements between the two apps that are "obvious theft" and which aren't found in the majority of Invitation apps online? I'm trying to understand your position.
Interesting... this appears to be a statement which can easily be both true and misleading, since MacOS 8.5 (and that original version of Sherlock) dates to 1998, whereas Watson only dates to 2001. Still, this does at least prompt a more nuanced analysis of the term "Sherlocking." Let's think about this for a moment...
So there are lot's of good facts in that link which respond to this issue, right alongside the most popular interpretation of those events. Everybody in this thread is making a really big deal out of that interpretation -- but let's just set aside "popular" assessments for a moment, and try our hands at putting the facts on a timeline to see where that leads us:
1998 - Apple releases a product called "Sherlock" that searches for stuff both locally and on the internet. The internet search feature turns out to be a pretty big deal.
1999 - Apple releases Sherlock 2, which leans hard into internet search. Unarguably an obvious and natural evolution of the product.
2001 - Karelia releases Watson for the Mac... also an internet search tool. Huh. Interesting choice of naming, eh? Perhaps an undisguised reference to the product which inspired Watson's development? Completely different interface, but actually a fair amount of overlap with the featureset of Sherlock 2.
2002 - Apple releases Sherlock 3 -- which isn't absolutely identical to Watson's interface, but clearly resembles it in a lot of ways. Karelia cries foul, and Apple claims it was all just a natural evolution.
But see, here's the part that nobody seems to really talk about... If you simply put the facts in order on a timeline as above, it arguably becomes clear that Karelia copied Apple first.
So, while we can acknowledge that Apple may have done this more than once over the years, it's important to realize that the very term itself, "Sherlocking," is based upon an intentionally myopic interpretation of those events two decades ago, wherein most commentators ignore the actual timeline in order to make Apple's transgression appear to be much worse than it really was.
Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not saying that Apple is in the clear, here. But I would suggest that Karelia was by no means lily white, either. Taking that into consideration, I think we can now address this last question...
Because even though Wood (Karelia) copied Apple first... Apple obviously observed that he did a really great job.
Some additional historical context: At this point, Apple had just recently come out of a legal battle with Microsoft (culminating in a final 1995 appeal to the Supreme Court) which had ultimately determined that Apple had no ability at all to hinder Windows going forward, in spite of the blatantly obvious similarities to MacOS. For various reasons, the design language that Apple had pioneered had largely been determined to be something which simply could not be protected.
So consequently, Apple felt no remorse at all in copying Wood's work, since (similar to the Windows situation) Watson arguably never would have existed without the preceding inspiration provided by Apple's own Sherlock. And Wood recognized this, too... which is why his company never actually sued Apple over the issue; while it was easy to spin their story in the court of public opinion, they clearly would have lost in a court of law, just as Apple had.
History isn't just a series of facts; it's also a question of interpretation. Not every interpretation accurately accounts for all of the facts. I have no illusions; my own interpretation may turn out to be questionable as well. But at the very least, I would suggest that putting the timeline together demonstrates that the popular interpretation is likewise quite questionable.
I'm sorry, Apple, but this is a RipOff. Trillion Dollar company can't at least vet what what some lousy developer does and just throw some wad of cash in their face, to make them happy, like they do for other adquisitions.
Bad Apple, Bad Apple!
Bad Apple, Bad Apple!
When you're not interested in actually competing in the market, just claim your competitor copied you! Surely that will help!
I'm waiting on one last tax document so I had time to kill this morning as I went through this thread. Something in the comments occurred to me so I went back through and counted the number of comments that were essentially "Apple bad" vs the number that were essentially "Apple good." Plus of course there were several that were unintelligible, didn't take a side or didn't address the issue at all. Also, there are commenters I'm ignoring in the forums, so there are some comments I definitely missed and therefore couldn't include.
That being said, and this being entirely unscientific, it turns out that the number of "Apple Bad" and "Apple Good" posts are roughly equivalent, with the "Apple Bad" having a slight edge, just 5 more.
And yet there are at least 7 comments claiming the thread is full of Apple fanboys who will never criticize anything Apple does. Funny how people see what they want to see.
Now before someone says "oMg wTf yOu sHoUlD gO oUtSiDe AnD tOuCh GrAsS" I'm going to do exactly that.
That being said, and this being entirely unscientific, it turns out that the number of "Apple Bad" and "Apple Good" posts are roughly equivalent, with the "Apple Bad" having a slight edge, just 5 more.
And yet there are at least 7 comments claiming the thread is full of Apple fanboys who will never criticize anything Apple does. Funny how people see what they want to see.
Now before someone says "oMg wTf yOu sHoUlD gO oUtSiDe AnD tOuCh GrAsS" I'm going to do exactly that.
AOL is where the cool kids organize their parties! Make sure you upgrade to a 56K modem though.
You just transported me back to the '90s. No Caesar haircut, that was my BF. No frosted tips, fortunately that was neither of us 🤣
I suppose when it's a Calculator for the iPad then it's ok because people pretty much demanded that they Sherlock calculators.
Last edited:
