[HN Gopher] Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they ... ___________________________________________________________________ Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning Author : amrrs Score : 243 points Date : 2021-06-09 18:58 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | syntaxing wrote: | Seriously curious, what percentage is "fair"? Or is the issue you | can't side load this app without going through the App Store? | smoldesu wrote: | The issue is that Apple continues to inroad services and tools | through their own proprietary systems, which gives them a | better excuse to mark up their products. Giving users the | choice of marketplaces gives Apple incentive to stay | competitive in an otherwise monopolistic software segment. | [deleted] | salamandersauce wrote: | If Apple wants to play gatekeeper, no percentage IMO unless | they're using Apple's payment network which should be | competitive with others like stripe at 3% or so. | | In this case they actually are willing to pay Apple, just 30% | of their revenue which is 10% of the transaction price but | Apple wants 30% of the transaction price. | cblconfederate wrote: | an 10% profit margin is considered average | WWLink wrote: | I think none. Apple is clearly nickel and diming their own | customers at this point. Now you're not only paying Apple for | your iPhone, and Apple services, but you're also stuck paying | them extra every time you buy a service from your iPhone. | | It's stupid and greedy. Like where do we draw the line? | distribot wrote: | I think the current system is too much in Apple's favor, but | I imagine they do have to spend a decent chunk of change | curating the app store, validating submissions, hosting the | apps for download, and maintaining the security | infrastructure for developers to sign their apps and users to | have confidence in them. This is all value added for | developers. | cromwellian wrote: | The emails from the testimony indicate they wanted only a | $1 billion run rate. They have a $4+ billion run rate. Do | we really think it costs them $1-4 billion to run the apps | store? I'd be shocked it cost even $100 million a year to | run it. | | The excuse that the 30% cut exists to pay for the costs of | running the store seem absurd. | protomyth wrote: | That is all in service of getting people to buy their | phones. Those are no value added to the developer, they are | restrictions on the developer so Apple can make statements | about its ecosystem. | Aerroon wrote: | If a grocery store allows you to order groceries online, but | they make it into an app instead of a website, will Apple | take a 30% cut on the groceries too? | salamandersauce wrote: | Nope. Retail goods are excempt already and can use their | own payment processors too. Big obvious example is the | Amazon app where you can buy anything so long as it isn't | digital content using Amazon's payment system. | carabiner wrote: | I've never thought "fairness" to be a material concept in | anything with money. I mean how could it be? Is it fair to tax | people different amounts, or should everyone be taxed the same | percentage? Or the same dollar amount? How can "fairness" as a | concept ever be nailed down to be useful? | JamesSwift wrote: | The issue isn't really if 30% is "fair", its that the market | has no way to find out if it is because apple have forced devs | into their app ecosystem by deliberately keeping iOS browsers | slightly worse than native apps (no push messaging or | background processing). So there is no viable way for an | alternate store, with an alternate fee structure, to run on iOS | devices. | protomyth wrote: | This whole notion that Apple, by virtue of creating a platform, | needs to cash in on every use of the platform really needs to | go. Even IBM in the mainframe era knew not to charge | transaction fees on what runs on the platform. The reason you | create great APIs is to get developers to support your platform | is so people will buy your platform. Without app developers, | Apple is only what it can provide and probably not as popular. | Those court released e-mails are going to keep showing people | how wrong Apple's thinking is. | | If Apple is the payment processor than so be it, but if they | have nothing to do with the transaction, they deserve no money. | Even saying that its an app in the App Store is lame because | there is no other way to get apps on the platform. Even free | apps help Apple to sell their wares. | xbar wrote: | Compiler royalties, anyone? | protomyth wrote: | Ah, I remember the runtime fees for Smalltalks. I was | hoping that whole thing was confined to niche markets these | days. | falcolas wrote: | Well, Google charges 30%. Microsoft (for the XBox, not sure | about their store) 30%. Sony (PS4) 30%. Steam was 30%, but this | is dropping. Nintendo's is well protected by NDAs, but | reportedly 15-30%. | | 30% is pretty close to a standard when you're providing the | storefront and control the hardware. | smnrchrds wrote: | In Canada, Bell charges 80$ for a smartphone plan with 30GiB | of data; and TELUS charges 80$ for a smartphone plan with | 30GiB of data; and Rogers charges 80$ for a smartphone plan | with 30GiB of data. | | If you don't want to spend as much, you can go with their | discount brands. Virgin Mobile Canada (Bell subsidiary) | charges 45$ for 3GiB of data; and Koodo (TELUS subsidiary) | charges 45$ for 3GiB of data; and Fido (Rogers subsidiary) | charges 45$ for 3GiB of data. | | One one to look at it is that the market rate for the | smartphone plan with 30GiB of data is 80$ and the market rate | for 3GiB of data is 45$. Another way is that it is an | oligopoly situation. Having lived in Canada for a long time, | I know it's the latter. Apple/Google/etc store markup | situation seems similar enough that I am inclined to believe | it is a case of oligopoly too. | falcolas wrote: | The front runners here aren't Apple and Google, but Sony, | Microsoft, and Nintendo. They set the standard that Steam, | Apple, Google, and others have followed. | smnrchrds wrote: | Bell existed long before Rogers and TELUS, but nowadays, | they are equal partners and beneficiaries of an | oligopoly. Bell does not have more power because it was | there first, nor TELUS less in the wrong because it | entered it last. Whatever differences their time of entry | to the market made has long since dissipated. I don't see | how the situation is different for app stores. | salamandersauce wrote: | They really didn't. Physical video game software | royalties were not 30% take. Closer to 10%, although it | varied depending on manufacturer and publisher | agreements. | | By the time Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo got established | selling digital video games Apple had already been doing | a 30% take of iTunes songs for years. | mdoms wrote: | Google allows other payment providers in apps without | mandating their own provider. Same with Steam. I don't know | about Microsoft or Sony. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | Serious question, why does _everything_ require an app? Why can | 't the same thing be accomplished via the mobile web? I get so | tired of being prompted to install apps when you could just *show | me the damned web page*. Anything that requires speed can be done | via webassembly, and sure, anything like games can ship a native | app. | stefan_ wrote: | Oh, I know this one! Because Apple made Safari the new Internet | Explorer to force you into their walled garden where they | extract their tithe. | rabuse wrote: | I can't stand building for iOS Safari. It is the pain-point | in so much of my development. | nickthegreek wrote: | onlyfans is doing just fine in this space. They didn't want to | worry about app store TOS or % cuts and decided to be web only. | gmaster1440 wrote: | While a good example of a web app that could've been a native | app, there's a strong argument that they didn't decide to be | web only as much as forced due to the nature of their content | never being allowed in the app stores. | JamesSwift wrote: | Usually for proper push messaging and background processing | jeroenhd wrote: | Those have been part of the web standards for ages | (serviceworkers, web notifications). | azinman2 wrote: | Web notifications don't work on iOS and I'm assuming | Android as well? Serviceworkers aren't woken up in response | to a background push if your phone is lock and not on that | webpage. | jeroenhd wrote: | Web notifications work fine on Android. Has Apple still | not fixed notifications then? I was under the impression | that they claimed to have massively improve Safari during | last year's conference? | drfuzzyness wrote: | From a user standpoint, Web Notifications work quite well | on Android. When using Chrome for Android (Chromium), | each site is assigned a separate Notification Channel so | users can change notification priority or block | notifications. Firefox for Android (Gecko) works | similarly but without Notification Channels. | JamesSwift wrote: | OK, well iOS doesn't adhere to the standard, which means | most of the US mobile device market does not support it. | Epskampie wrote: | Yeah, not supported on iOS. | Klonoar wrote: | Well, there was technically that iOS wallet/pass trick - | dunno if it's been plugged tho. | | Otherwise, yeah. | dnissley wrote: | https://developer.mozilla.org/en- | US/docs/Web/API/Notificatio... | toast0 wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong (I'd actually love to be wrong), | but browsers don't let you do silent pushes, and background | data fetches are pretty limited, which makes it hard to do | something where the phone gets updated frequently with non- | urgent data, so that when you open the app/page, you have | current data regardless of connectivity when you open the | app, assuming you've got at least intermittent | connectivity. | | Weather, headline news, sports scores, non-urgent messaging | could really use silent push to get data synced whenever | you want to use it, but clearly not with Safari on an | iPhone, and I don't think you can do it on Android without | an app either. | sagarm wrote: | Why the heck do you need to be constantly pushed | headlines, sport scores, and non-urgent messages? Just | make them load fast, so when you only use resources on | the device when the app is actually in use. | | It's exactly this kind of wasteful resource usage and the | accompanying notification spam that drives me to avoid | native apps in the first place. | toast0 wrote: | Because I want to use these things when I have no | connectivity. And I don't always plan ahead for no | connectivity. | jeroenhd wrote: | Push is supported by all competent browsers, which of | course excludes Internet Explorer, Android WebView (the | shitty built-in one) and Safari (iOS and desktop) [0]. | Firefox (on every platform but iOS) even supports a | limited amount of silent pushes. I personally wouldn't | want silent background pushes to an installed web app | anyway, I don't see what data is important enough to sync | but not important enough to notify about. Such a | mechanism would absolutely ruin the device's battery | life. | | Google, being Google, have developed a Background Sync | API [1] that can achieve background sync without | notifying the user. This also extends to Edge and Opera | and such because they share an engine. | | I can see the use in a system where you sync data to a | device that has intermittent connectivity, but I've | honestly never seen such a system work for native apps | when I've had intermittent connectivity myself. Even | Google's automatic weather notifications don't show the | right weather until I tap then and a web search loads. | | Your background sync requirement is a nice to have and | it'd certainly be a reason to use the app instead of the | web version of a service for users with limited | connectivity, but they're not really strict requirements | for most applications. The applications we use today | mostly consist of scrolling and connected browsing, with | some data management and sync in between. For example, I | browse twitter through the web app and outside the | "fleets", whatever they are, that Twitter simply decided | not to port, I'm not missing anything. I get | notifications, I can browse, I can compose, there's | really nothing more I need. | | In the end, Apple's (intentional, probably) nerfing of | Safari is what primarily stands in the way of proper | mobile app support on the web. Notifications are a | feature that I'd say most apps would require these days | and Apple simply refuses to allow them. There's plenty of | other WebKit gripes that developers have to overcome to | program for iOS, but the complete lack of certain | features is absolutely the worst. | | [0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en- | US/docs/Web/API/Push_API [1]: https://developers.google.c | om/web/updates/2015/12/background... | querulous wrote: | not on mobile safari | JamesSwift wrote: | Right, and for those who aren't aware, that means not on | any iOS browser since they all (are required to) use | safari under the covers | enoughalready wrote: | Many features aren't available on the web. e.g. web midi isn't | planned on being worked on anytime soon by the webkit team. | Also, iOS Safari browser updates constantly break/maim apps. | e.g. iOS 14.4.x all had real time audio processing issues that | weren't fixed until iOS 14.5. | bahmboo wrote: | Because apple deliberately hobbles mobile safari so that you | need a native app to get real stuff to work. Google talks the | talk for web apps but still falls far short. And why not? They | are making so much money by not actually supporting web apps. | It's in both companies DNA now. | enlyth wrote: | I think people are used to just scrolling to an icon on their | home screen and tapping on it, and companies like Apple/Google | don't really like the idea of PWAs because they lose control | over the developers and walled garden ecosystems they have | created | | Developers will optimize for what feels natural to the user, | i.e. installing an "app" which doesn't require typing an | address in the browser or scrolling through bookmarks | | Also some companies from the developer side will want that | extra user control that you don't have in the browser, for | example to track them more, play unskippable ads, or access to | some native features on the phone which are not available in | web apps | Grimm1 wrote: | Google actually pushed for the PWA and did/does things to | support them. It's largely Apple that has made them more | difficult/impossible. | sagarm wrote: | Chrome supports installing web apps to your home screen, | though clearly even among the HN crowd that is not common | knowledge. | alexyz12 wrote: | It's hard to do photo/video/media integration on a web page. | There no good way to interact with the filesystem to share | content, start a livestream, etc. UIKit also make it pretty | easy to create layouts that work well on your phone with | swiping gestures. | | I am an app developer that would love to move to a mobile web | app but those are the problems that I am running into at least. | If web assembly can accomplish all of that then I just am not | well educated enough to use it instead. | dyingkneepad wrote: | Your service not having access to my data is a feature. It's | one of the primary reasons I prefer websites over apps. | jaywalk wrote: | What personal data (that you didn't explicitly provide or | allow access to) does an app have access to that a website | doesn't? | ArchOversight wrote: | There's a whole range of things that an app can do/infer | on a system that a web page in a browser can't. | | Things like processes that are running, RAM, battery | life, and more. | alexyz12 wrote: | what if the service is a way to manage your data? In my | case its a photo library alternative for fitness | photos/videos. Take a picture of your handstand every month | and store it locally in the app documents folder or on | PhotoKit so that you can see improvements over time | (nothing is stored in the cloud). I don't know of a way to | do that on a mobile website. | the_other wrote: | I wish you well. | | I wont be a customer because I don't care enough about my | looks or fitness to get into daily photos. But, really, | what does your app offer over the photo gallery and | folders already on my phone? | alexyz12 wrote: | I personally like keeping it separate from my phone's | photos/video folders. You can also add notes/rep counts | and add links to useful workouts you find online. | jeroenhd wrote: | I don't know about iOS, but the file picker on Android is | fine. Live streaming through Javascript is also no harder | than live streaming through native libraries. Granted, there | may be less "official" SDKs out there because the web is an | open ecosystem, but still. | | Jitsi and Kickstarter have quite competent streaming systems. | I remember being amazed by the incredibly low latency the | Kickstarter streaming system has (always sub 100ms between | camera and my screen across the Atlantic with good quality!). | | An app for uploading images and videos, writing text posts, | receiving payment and streaming video doesn't need a native | app. If there is a choice between giving an absurd percentage | to Apple or building a web version, the web version makes a | lot more sense. | | However, even if they build out a web version right now, | Apple will refuse any update pointing users towards the web | version of any app because that goes against their TOS. That | will make any switch quite difficult. | can16358p wrote: | Even if technically all SDKs had an equivalent, a PWA | never, ever feels like a real native app. All the | difference is noticable. It's all the slight details, | gesture and touch handling, and few more, but they all sum | of and it feels laggy. | fastball wrote: | We're building a mobile app because our users demand it. | tpl wrote: | Apple intentionally hobbled mobile web for a long time on iOS | to incentivize people writing a native app over just making a | webapp. | baby wrote: | I'm wondering if native mobile apps are doomed to disappear as | the web and mobile Browsers meet in the middle, the same way | everything was a native app for quite some time in desktop land | and now everything is a webapp. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | If you watch Apple they're doing everything within their | power to make sure this doesn't happen. | | Current day because they've neglected Macs so much over the | past few years your Mac is now mostly just a shell to run a | jumble of electron apps (I used to love Mac Cocoa apps but | can't even name one that has launched in the past 2 years) | but if you follow what they're doing they'd prefer it if it | was a selection of iPadOS apps instead. | bruceb wrote: | Doubt it, mobile phones have only increased in features. More | features, more likely need native app. | | What incentive to does Apple have to make people use apps | less and the web more? | pzo wrote: | Apple doesn't support a lot of modern web api or the api they | provide is crippled. just few examples: there is no full screen | mode Web api on iPhone - only on ipad - games pretty much | require those. | | There is no web push notification support on ios - only on | desktop safari. | ksec wrote: | >Serious question, why does everything require an app? | | An App button on your home screen is zillion times better for | 95% of user than a web address. | | If Apple allowed one click installation of Web App. ( Not | clicking on Safari settings and add Site to Home Screen button | ). Or Scanning a QRCode to download a Web App. | | Along with adding all the missing Web App features to Safari | that could be enabled only for Web App and not Web browser. | | That would have been fine by me. This is borderline as good as | side loading. | patagonia wrote: | Wrong question | whywhywhywhy wrote: | Because Apple is intentionally limiting the mobile web to force | your hand to create an app. | | I've been working on hardware that we've been trying to ship | using open technology for the protocols so it doesn't need | apps. So focusing on things like WebBT and WebUSB which is | almost magic, a user can unbox your device go to a website and | then do anything you'd possibly want with. But yeah all falls | apart the second it needs to work on an iPhone and you're back | in the world of having to build an app. | | Whole thing works flawlessly with just a webdev team on | computers and android devices but because of Apple to ship this | vision we need to build a solitary iOS app too. | | I say this as an iPhone user too, unfortunately I feel too | locked into their platform to leave now. | [deleted] | slver wrote: | The only thing I don't understand is why these people push apps | on the AppStore and then whine about the rules they've agreed to. | Apple's 30% is infamous. It's not something obscure about iTunes | use in nuclear weapons of mass destruction. | ApolloFortyNine wrote: | Because they have a monopoly over 50% of the population, and | many businesses quite literally have to participate or they | would cease to exist. | | Do you think it'd be legal for Microsoft to charge a 30% fee on | every transaction you make on Windows? | taylodl wrote: | They do not have a monopoly. 50% or more of the population | _chose_ to be in Apple 's walled garden. They knew the rules, | they knew what they were buying. Some people don't want to be | in Apple's walled garden, so they buy Android. Businesses | tend to prefer Apple's ecosystem because sales data has shown | that Apple's customers tend to pay more for applications and | services - so they're coveted customers. | dvtkrlbs wrote: | You are delusional | slver wrote: | Wait so "because [Apple] have a monopoly" (which isn't | correct, but let's put that aside) they can push an app and | then act surprised about Apple enforcing the ToS they agreed | to? | | Yeah that's not good enough. | alpaca128 wrote: | > It's not something obscure about iTunes use in nuclear | weapons of mass destruction. | | This is not some weirdness of iTunes but is standard practice | in all large software licenses. Take a look at Adobe or | Microsoft licenses, they all have this clause. | thoughtstheseus wrote: | Possible misleading title. Apple wants 30% of earnings, not | "creator" earnings. | WWLink wrote: | Possibly misleading comment. Did you read the tweet thread? | Apple is demanding 30% of all transactions sourced from an | Apple device. | CubsFan1060 wrote: | From the app. As someone else noticed, not having an app | doesn't seem to have slowed down OnlyFans | Jcowell wrote: | I feel like Onlyfans being a porn platform is the reason | behind its success. Porn and sex are very strong motivators | if dare not I say innovators for Platforms and | technologies. I'm still hanging on the belief that VR will | be catapulted by Porn. | vanous wrote: | > Possible misleading title. Apple wants 30% of earnings, not | "creator" earnings. | | "In writing and over the phone, we explained to Apple that we | could pay them 30% of our revenues (from our 10% take rate). | It'll be harder to cover costs and build features as a startup, | but at least it'd be coming from us. Apple insisted on taking | 30% of creators' total earnings." | [deleted] | BoorishBears wrote: | This is being pedantic to the point of being wrong. | | Because of the nature of the app, the earnings in-app, which | Apple wants, are creator earnings. | | Your suggested title would be less specific to the point of | being flat out wrong if Fanhouse makes earnings elsewhere... | which they do. | mdoms wrote: | Please read the thread before commenting. | Hamuko wrote: | Not really. Apple's cut would take 30% of the creator earnings. | Of course, it would also take 30% of the app's earnings. | | So instead of the creator getting $90 and the app getting $10 | when someone pays $100 through Fanhouse, Apple gets $30, the | app gets $7 and the creator gets $63. | drivebycomment wrote: | Per https://fanhouse.app/, "Fanhouse is the place where creators | can monetize their social media personalities by posting freely | about their lives, like a finsta, close friends story, or private | alt, while connecting and engaging with their top fans." | | So they built a platform, where they take some cut for | themselves, while allowing other people to sell some digital | contents on their platform. Apple built a platform, where they | take some cut for themselves, while allowing other people to sell | digital contents on their platform. | | Other than the argument that this could be an anti-trust | situation (i.e. in that case, the argument would be that Apple is | abusing their market position), what differentiates these two | cases ? | TX0098812 wrote: | > Other than the argument that this could be an anti-trust | situation (i.e. in that case, the argument would be that Apple | is abusing their market position), what differentiates these | two cases ? | | Well I think you already explained it. One is a company large | enough to effectively dictate the terms of the market and | thereby practically tax every other company. | | The other is a small tool among many others. | devit wrote: | You can easily use another platform instead of Fanhouse (users | can easily go on another website or app). | | You can't easily use another delivery method for apps to iPhone | users (that would require iPhone users to also buy and carry an | Android device, which is a massive hassle). | the_other wrote: | Or use the web. | smoldesu wrote: | Telling people that the web is a suitable replacement for | native apps is an empty promise, especially when your only | option for a browser on iOS is one that is notoriously | outdated and incompatible with the modern web. | fbelzile wrote: | People look for analogies to the App Store all the time. You | can't compare App Store to anything else. You have a logical | argument that frames two companies doing the same thing and | pointing out the hypocrisy without taking into account their | market shares, value provided for their fees or considered the | fact that Apple developers target people that _already paid_ | for a device and the developer _already pays_ fees to release | apps via the App Store. | | I think what developers want is a fair price for what they get | out of the App Store and a choice to not use it if they want. | Selling a $5 digital good or a $100 dollar digital good costs | the exact same to Apple (minus the 2% credit card fee). | prepend wrote: | Fees aren't about costs, they are about value. | | This is all over the place. | | Even with credit cards, it doesn't cost 3% of something to | process the fee. A $100 purchase yields $3 to the credit card | and a $1000 purchase yields $30. It's literally the same size | data transfer. There's some minimal additional cost for | fraud/insurance but they don't base their fees on direct | costs. | | Also, generally speaking, when there is some regulation | forcing cost plus fees it makes things suck more (eg, water | and power). | cromwellian wrote: | But then why doesn't Apple take a 30% cut of every Uber driver | fee? 30% of every DoorDash delivered, etc? | | Why is a platform for monetizing artists any different than a | platform for monetizing your car? | qeternity wrote: | They draw a line between digital and physical purchases. | smnrchrds wrote: | They don't force Netflix to pay them 30% either. The | reality is they take 30% where they can overpower the other | party. Where they are overpowered, they acquiesce. | lotsofpulp wrote: | They also drew a line between in app and non in app | transactions. | smnrchrds wrote: | They did not just draw a line; they gerrymandered a line | so Netflix would not leave App Store and Apple would not | lose its income from smaller players while pretending it | is a fair line in the sand. Even Marco Arment has | commented on the ridiculousness of the complexity of the | line. I highly recommend reading the link below. | | https://marco.org/2020/09/11/app-review-changes | lotsofpulp wrote: | Oh, I did not know all of that. I would agree those | policies are ridiculous. | AlexandrB wrote: | That post is from Sept. 2020, but Netflix (and Audible, | Comixology + others) have been dodging the 30% cut for | years simply by not allowing you to pay within the app. | I'm not sure Apple had Netflix in mind with this change. | smnrchrds wrote: | See my other comment here about Netflix: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27453395 | acchow wrote: | I believe the majority of a Netflix subscriber's | consumption is still on their TV, not on their | iPhone/iPad. | | But you also cannot pay for Netflix in the iPhone app. | You have to do it on their website. | Hnrobert42 wrote: | I pay Netflix through my iPhone. I can manage the | subscription along with my other iPhone app | subscriptions. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | You can't pay Fanhouse on iOS, either. | smoldesu wrote: | > But you also cannot pay for Netflix in the iPhone app. | You have to do it on their website | | The App Store explicitly rejects smaller apps that | attempt to do this. See Hey, the email client that tried | the exact same thing and got the cold-shoulder. | typest wrote: | This is because Netflix, knowing Apple would take 30%, | does not allow you to sign up via an iPhone app. Apple | takes 30% if you sign up via iPhone, not if you sign up | via web and then use the iPhone app. | smoldesu wrote: | This is true, but it's still an exception made for their | specific situation. Email app Hey tried doing the same | thing recently, and Apple rejected the update and refused | to push further feature updates until they removed it. | It's a double standard, no matter how you cut it. | smnrchrds wrote: | Netflix was able to do this because Apple carved out an | exception for them by gerrymandering the rules so Netflix | could do this. They did that because Netflix was powerful | enough. Hey tried to do a similar thing, but Apple was | having none of it. They were going to force them to pay | them 30%, because they were not powerful enough. When the | social media storm made them more powerful, Apple | acquiesced. | defaultname wrote: | Apple has always had clear exceptions for video, audio, | magazine and newspaper apps. | | "3.1.3(a) "Reader" Apps: Apps may allow a user to access | previously purchased content or content subscriptions | (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, | music, and video). Reader apps may offer account creation | for free tiers, and account management functionality for | existing customers." | | It isn't because Netflix or Amazon are "powerful" enough, | but that they saw that these were traditional | multiplatform services. | | I disagree with the ridiculous Hey situation (and note | that Apple backed down), however let's be accurate. | sida wrote: | audible - the audio book app also does not allow | purchases in-app. | | Fanhouse can just let purchases happen on web | querulous wrote: | if you read the twitter thread or the verge article | you'll see this isn't true. fanhouse did disable in app | purchases and force transactions via the web and apple | threatened to pull their app unless they reenabled in app | purchases | smnrchrds wrote: | You mean Audible by Amazon.com, Inc.? | mrek0 wrote: | Yep that's correct. | ibero wrote: | wait, what was Netflix able to do? | smnrchrds wrote: | Netflix does not allow you to sign up in their iOS app. | You have to sing up and set up payment through their | website, but you can use your username and password to | use your subscription in iOS. They do not pay the Apple | Tax. | | Hey tried to use the exact same, but Apple said they MUST | allow sign ups in the app, using in-app purchase API, and | paying 30% to Apple. Apple was not going to allow Hey to | do what Netflix/Spotify/etc have done for ages, until | public sentiments and social media storm forced them to | acquiesce. | [deleted] | ksec wrote: | That _used_ to make sense in the early days of Smartphone | era. Precisely because Digital have zero variable cost for | each additional goods. And Apple wasn 't very straight with | those rules. They only enforce it on Software and Games, | not services. | | Now everything goes _through_ your Smartphone. And the | idea, to quote what Apple has been saying in court, they | need to recoup those API cost. As they are using their API, | they want a cut. Since the Apps for both Physical and | Digital goods _uses_ those API, and Digital Goods doesn 't | necessary use those API for creation. ( e.g I use Windows | to create ), why are they only charging Digital Goods and | not Physicals? | | The only reason why Apple charges 30% of Digital Goods is | because they know Digital Goods have zero replication cost. | The cost of an additional Digital Goods is essentially | zero, they want 30% of it. And Physical goods have basic | unit cost. So they are charging base on the product margin. | And this was clear in the Wordpess case, once they look at | domain name registration where the whole industry is | basically operating with 0% margin. Apple decide to put an | exemption on it. | | Then became a question, how did we arrive at 30% in the | first place? If you look at Amazon Web Store, they have | different percentage rate for different product? Why? | Because they is how the market have worked over the years. | They are basing the commission on current market rate / | margin. Just like your Super Market has different margin | for different product. | | Ever since Apple decided on their Doubling Services Revenue | by 2020, they have chased down every single 30% services. | It is sad how much good faith they have burned. | insert_coin wrote: | Because it's America and they can decide to charge whatever | they want for their product? | qeternity wrote: | This. She is operating a platform for creators...that is | literally what the AppStore is. She knew the rules when she | started playing this game, and wants to appeal to emotions and | hyperbole like this is an issue between "life and death". | | Why does she get to keep 10%? It's arbitrary. What if I want to | start an app that helps creators manage their Fanhouse content? | Should I ask Fanhouse for a cut of their fees so that I can | pass on 90% of gross earnings to creator? | TX0098812 wrote: | > She knew the rules when she started playing this game | | Knowing the situation is not the same as accepting it. Just | because I know a couple of large actors control the market | does not mean I have to accept the situation. | insert_coin wrote: | If you engage with those actors accepting the terms that is | exactly what it means. | TX0098812 wrote: | ...no. | | You can't meaningfully accept terms when they are a | requirement to enter the market. | s3r3nity wrote: | What market? The market of iOS users? | | There are literally more users on Android - If I were in | that position, I could just switch platforms. | | If I'm a radio manufacturer, I can't cry foul that | Lamborghini won't allow me to sell my radio in their cars | by calling them a monopolist over the "market of | Lamborghini drivers." | | If I then decide to still make an exclusive Lamborghini | radio, I own that responsibility for my failed business | model. | insert_coin wrote: | They are not required to accept them, OnlyFans is doing | it just fine without Apple. They chose to be in Apple's | platform. Voluntarily. | qeternity wrote: | This is absurd. In any other situation you'd never argue | this. | | Ok, so I can just ignore all regulations because I don't | like them? I can sell unsafe food in my restaurant | because I don't want to agree to the terms the government | says I must adhere to? | iamdbtoo wrote: | If it's a requirement to enter the market, why wasn't it | considered when developing the business model? | ardit33 wrote: | you can make the same argument for netflix, amazon, or | anything that involves any type of transaction, even your | uber... | | If she is using the app store payments, then fine. But if she | is not using it, then that is a problem. | qeternity wrote: | Yes, which is precisely what she should do. | gamblor956 wrote: | She gets 10% if creators choose to use her service as opposed | to the dozens of other similar services, some of which charge | more and some of which charge less. Hence, there is no | antitrust issue. | | OTOH, App developers don't get a choice for iOS. They must | use Apple's payment system. They don't have a variety of | payment processors to choose from. There is no _market_ | determining whether 30% is fair, and that is why antitrust | regulations may apply. | | _What if I want to start an app that helps creators manage | their Fanhouse content? Should I ask Fanhouse for a cut of | their fees so that I can pass on 90% of gross earnings to | creator?_ | | That is how many B2B relationships actually work; you've | described a referral arrangement in which one company refers | a paying customer to another company and in exchange for | their referral they get paid a percent of the revenue derived | from it. | qeternity wrote: | > OTOH, App developers don't get a choice for iOS. | | The choice is to not use iOS. You're argument is predicated | on using iOS, which is a false equivalency. | echelon wrote: | Apple is a mega-monopoly that has captured 50% of Americans | that use computers, and then installed taxation in front of | all of it. | | Businesses can't business anymore. It is beyond unhealthy for | startups. | | It's all a scam. All a ruse. And we're all victims. | | Computing was never like this before Steve Jobs decided to | ban literally everything and force people to live within his | death star. | | I can't believe how many folks within our industry are fine | with this! You owe your career to free and open computing. As | does Apple. They've just managed to gaslight us for so long | that we're apologizing for the horrible things they do. | | Break up Apple or allow people to install directly from the | web. Don't let Apple enforce their payment rails. | | They have enough goddamned money. | fartcannon wrote: | Wonderfully put. | | I am guilty of helping perpetuating this situation by | acquiescing and buying my wife/mother Apple gear. | | I won't do this anymore. | capybara_2020 wrote: | Just curious, if Apple is so bad, why do people build apps for | it? Browsers are very robust now a days. I have never built a | iPhone or Android app, never needed to. Browsers now a days I | imagine can get you atleast 90% of the way. Why go to Apple if | you can build a webapp. And it is cross platform so you do not | have to maintain a separate Android app. | | What am I missing? | cvwright wrote: | My app does end-to-end encryption, and this is much more | straightforward in a "real" app. (1) I need non-volatile | storage for the keys, and (2) I want users to know if/when they | get a new version of the code. | | You can do E2EE in a web app (like Element.io), but then every | time you load the page, you're trusting the server not to send | you a new version with a backdoor. | foepys wrote: | Some simply cannot avoid it because Apple does not implement | all necessary functionality for all kinds of apps in Safari and | does not allow other browser engines that do on iOS. | nikanj wrote: | A native app has access to way more marketable data than a | browser page. Why do you think all the big sites keep on | pushing you to install their app? | josephorjoe wrote: | The web never implemented easy micropayments, and | iPhone/Android did. | jonny_eh wrote: | Actually, Apple Pay works great on the web, but doesn't | charge a 30% fee. | taylodl wrote: | Which tells you everything. There's a _stocking fee_ you | pay to be on the Apple Store. I never hear the HN crowd | complaining about the hoops you have to jump through to get | your product on Walmart 's shelves. It's almost like the | entity owning the retail channel and the customers gets to | set the T's and C's. You always have the option for not | targeting Apple's customers and building your app for | Android only - just like you can tell Walmart where to | shove it and only sell your product at Costco. It's how | retail works. | fastball wrote: | Customers want dedicated mobile apps that they can download | from App Stores. | vbezhenar wrote: | 1. Apps get added to the home screen by default. Adding a | website to the home screen is not easy and most users are not | aware of this function. When app is on the home screen, there | are much higher chances that user will return. | | 2. Push notifications increase return rate as well. Website | can't send push notification to iOS client. | | So basically it comes down to user retention. Apps allows for | better user monetization, compared to websites. | Jcowell wrote: | I disagree about one partly. It's two (well 3 really) clicks | to add a PWA to the Home Screen. I would describe it more as | having friction than not being easy. | Daishiman wrote: | 3 clicks literally means you lost 90% of your potential | users. | t-writescode wrote: | Notifications and icons are pretty big for me. | etchalon wrote: | "Company is shocked to discover that the agreement they signed to | do a thing is being enforced." | jfrunyon wrote: | I don't understand. Has Apple changed their terms of services to | disallow this? Is it not clearly disallowed by their terms of | service? Or has it been disallowed for the whole 8 months of its | existence, and this person is mad that they only got away with it | for that long? | skc wrote: | It's a shame that these companies can't even vote with their feet | because Apple users are too lucrative as a market. | | Hell of a position to find yourself in as a business. | mdoms wrote: | This will keep happening as long as people keep agreeing to | Apple's terms and building on their platform. I wouldn't touch | Apple's platform with a 10 foot pole. Nothing here is new. It's | getting harder to sympathise with developers who keep doing it. | CubsFan1060 wrote: | I'll give you the counterpoint. I'm very happy to spend money | on apps and services that I like. | | However, I'm only going to do it through Apple's platform, for | a variety of reasons. If you don't want to build on Apple's | platform, that's completely fine. I won't be a customer. And | maybe that will change the system, I really don't know. | smoldesu wrote: | The issue is that this customer you're describing doesn't | exist. It does provide a marginally higher amount of friction | to use a non-native payment method, but there aren't any | users out there cancelling their Netflix subscription because | now Netflix gets 100% of the proceeds instead of 70%. At that | point, you're inadvertently sabotaging the very company that | you're trying to support, because your hardware manufacturer | decided that they need to tax your software, too. | slver wrote: | How can you honestly tell a person who just shared their | opinion "you don't exist"? I also would never enter my | credit card in an app, UNLESS it's a huge, well-trusted | brand (which this influencer app isn't). | | Many people wouldn't bother. The whole point of Apple | handling this is that you trust Apple to have more clue | than your average startup full of monkeys. | Jcowell wrote: | This is a big thing for me. I really do not want to give | any vendor raw Payment information if I can help. Would | much rather do so though a service like Apple Pay/Google | Pay. And then only have to worry about that one vendor | when they get a data breach then a dozen vendors and deal | with a dozen data breaches. | smoldesu wrote: | There are plenty of services that offer payment fuzzing | options, putting your faith in one of the largest digital | targets does effectively nothing to save your digital | privacy. | mdoms wrote: | I'm not saying Apple isn't adding end-user value. I can | easily imagine a payment screen in an app that looks like, | | * Pay with Apple Pay ($13.00) | | * Pay with Stripe ($10.50) | | If their value-add is as strong as you say then surely they'd | still make plenty of money. If not, well maybe they need to | start adding more value or dropping their prices, just like | anyone in a competitive market. | deadmutex wrote: | Does Apple's TOS allow this? | | IIRC, Credit card companies used to disallow different | pricing for cash and CC. | mdoms wrote: | They also do not allow you to mention or even imply the | existence of their fee. Nor do they allow you to so much | as link to an external website that provides other | payment options, nor mention the existence of such a | website. | querulous wrote: | no. you can't even mention other payment methods | ThePowerOfFuet wrote: | Based on this, I downloaded the Fanhouse app, but before signing | up I figured I'd read the privacy policy [0]. | | >Information We Get When You Use the Service * Cookies, Log Data | and other tracking technologies: When you use our Service, we and | our business partners may collect certain information about your | computer or device through technology such as cookies, web | beacons, log files, or other tracking/recording tools. The | information we collect through the use of tracking technologies | includes, but is not limited to, IP address, browser information, | referring/exit pages and URLs, click stream data and information | about how you interact with links on the website, mobile app, or | Service, domain names, landing pages, page views, cookie data | that allows us to uniquely identify your browser and track your | behavior on our site, mobile device type, mobile device IDs or | other persistent identifiers, and location data collected from | your mobile device. Some or all of this data may be combined with | other information described above. When you access our Service by | or through a mobile device, we may receive or collect and store a | unique identification numbers associated with your device or our | mobile application (including, for example, a UDID, Unique ID for | Advertisers ("IDFA"), Google Ad ID, or Windows Advertising ID or | other identifier), mobile carrier, device type, model and | manufacturer, mobile device operating system brand and model, | phone number, and, depending on your mobile device settings, your | geographical location data, including GPS coordinates (e.g. | latitude and/or longitude), WiFi location or similar information | regarding the location of your mobile device. You have the option | to either accept or refuse these cookies, and know when a cookie | is being sent to your computer. If you choose to refuse our | cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. | * Analytics Data: We may also collect analytics data, or use | third-party analytics tools, to help us measure traffic and usage | trends for the Service. These tools collect information sent by | your browser or mobile device, including the pages you visit, | your use of third party applications, and other information that | assists us in analyzing and improving the Service. | | That'll be a hard no from me. App deleted. (Also absolutely | illegal in the EU, and not in line with their own App Store | listing's privacy disclosure.) | | [0] https://fanhouse.app/docs/privacy | otterley wrote: | I hate to be That Guy, but Apple doesn't care how much money you | keep vs. how much money you pay others when you accept In-App | Payments. If you paid 90% of your IaP revenues to the power | company instead of to content creators, Apple has no way of | knowing this. It just would mean that your business has no hope | of being profitable. | | Fanhouse can still pass IaP revenues onto their customers | ("creators"), but they're going to end up giving them 63% of | their IaP revenue (90% of 70%) instead of 90%. | | This is a business problem disguised as a justice issue. | LatteLazy wrote: | Isn't the point here What they get 30% of? | | Do they get 30% of what the end user pays or 30% of the revenue | the app maker keeps (30% of Fanhouses 10% is 3%)? | echelon wrote: | > This is a business problem disguised as a justice issue. | | And we're discussing it because the monopoly known as Apple is | continuing to gaslight and extort our industry. | | Apple cannot be the single point of entry into a device that is | responsible for 50% of American computing-related commerce. | That might have worked if Apple was a small device used by 5% | of consumers, but let's be real. Apple is the face of modern | computing. | | What the question really should be is, "why should Apple get to | enjoy all commerce and freedoms linked to computing?" Through | marketing and developing a good product, they've brought | themselves into a market leader position. The choice to lock | down their device may have made sense at 5%, but now it | suffocates our entire industry under their gargantuan weight. | | Apple isn't a device maker anymore. They're _the fabric of | computing_ itself. They have all the customers, they control | all the software, and they make all the choices. You don 't get | ingress without going through them. They've been transformed | into an analog of a common carrier, and the law now needs to | treat them as such. | | The only path forward is to force Apple to allow web-based | downloads of apps, no longer allow them to force Apple payment | rails, and to enable non-Safari based browsers to be installed. | | Simple fix that will restore balance and health to the | industry. | | After this change happens, Apple will remain a 2 Trillion | dollar company. This has negligible impact on their revenue - | all it does is force them to work harder and gives the rest of | us much-needed breathing room. | | (Nevermind the right to repair and compute arguments.) | carabiner wrote: | > We have creators who are unemployed from the pandemic. We have | creators who need to pay rent, to pay tuition, to pay medical | expenses, and they need their income to survive. Apple's 30% | directly threatens their livelihoods. | | Does anyone find this reasoning disingenuous? "Will you think of | the [children or other unprivileged group]?" Is Apple morally | obligated to give money to people with harder lives? It weakens | her whole argument. Jasmine knows this. She used to be on | OnlyFans which has no app, and is an Ivy League (UPenn) grad. | She's trying to keep her cash while making an emotional appeal. | asimjalis wrote: | I am noticing that many people are downvoting comments which | justify Apple's 30%. I don't understand this logic. Is the | assumption that if we downvote these comments Apple is going to | rescind the 30%? | | The upvote or downvote is not about agreement with a post, but | whether the post makes its point clearly, and whether its | arguments have merit. | | The purpose of these discussions should not be to find the most | popular opinions but to find the most insightful ones. | amrrs wrote: | One of the replies from the founder: >We removed the ability to | subscribe in app, but Apple still required us to do their 30% or | would remove our app. However, if you do have the current app, | it's not yet subject to Apple's 30% and all creators still will | receive 90% of their earnings. Web will also remain functional | | https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/14027168228566876... | Jcowell wrote: | This is what I largely have a problem with (I personally don't | care about the 30% either way) why can Patreon, a similar | service, do this but This app can't? | danso wrote: | Maybe it's been grandfathered in? But isn't it already the | status quo for Apple to selectively give favorable treatment | to bigger operators? Prime Video's app previously disabled | in-app buying, but at some point in the past year they made a | deal with Apple: | | https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax- | amazon-... | | > _Apple and Amazon very, very quietly unveiled a monumental | app deal this week, without fanfare or, sadly, much in the | way of transparency. Out of nowhere, buttons to buy or rent | movies appeared in the Amazon Prime Video app. It's difficult | to express how strange this is: for over a decade, Apple has | stuck to the rule that all digital goods sold in iOS apps | must use Apple's payment methods, including Apple's 30 | percent cut._ | JoshTko wrote: | Title should be Fanhouse didn't understand app store policy and | built an unsustainable business model. | hu3 wrote: | The same App Store Policy that magically doesn't apply to a | similar service, Patreon? | alpacaillama wrote: | Going to jump in and reply. Patreon explicitly doesn't do Pay | to views, doesn't have interaction gated behind paywalls, and | is meant as just a straight transfer of $. Fanhouse does a | lot of these things which counts as digital transactions. | This differentiation makes sense to me. Also interestingly | most people I have seen use fanhouse use it for NFSW stuff | but Stripe seems to be fine with it? Specifically the pay to | view feature which is people basically selling nudes. | hu3 wrote: | Interesting. Doesn't Apple disallow porn? | | Also Patreon does gate content behind payment, with | different tiers even. | | And I've seen Patreons sell one-time services/products for | a fee, like this random Patreon: | https://i.imgur.com/qKpOwpq.png | | All these subtle differentiations to justify one service | paying 30% while Patreon doesn't seem arbitrary to say the | least. It makes no sense. | alpacaillama wrote: | I agree with your point about the differentiation being | vague and the fact that apple should be more clear. | | Also apple does disallow porn. And fanhouse also says no | porn but every fanhouse creator's marketing is around | suggestive pics. They get around it by calling it "lewd" | instead of nude and the app literally has a pay to view | picture functionality which some creators use for NSFW | stuff. I wonder when Stripe will catch on to this. | Basically marketing != what's happening. | Apocryphon wrote: | Fanhouse is explicitly supposed to be PG-13 and a family- | friendly equivalent to other similar platforms. It wouldn't | have even been listed on the App Store if it wasn't. | alpacaillama wrote: | I can find you 15 fanhouse creator tweets that are | suggestive in nature. They get around the PG-13 | requirement by calling it "lewd". Do you want 13 year | olds to buy lewds? Lol def not PG-13 whatever they claim. | And from personal experience a creator who has offered to | let me buy her nudes on fanhouse's pay to view. I too can | claim something is SFW. | [deleted] | alpacaillama wrote: | Here's one such tweet fyi: https://twitter.com/rotkill/st | atus/1367687681837301761?s=21 Just go on twitter and | search for "fanhouse lewd" make sure twitter is not auto | correcting fanhouse to funhouse. Lol they are clearly | violating Stripe's agreement and Apple's no porn rule. | All the SFW is marketing to differ from Onlyfans and has | worked. :) | somethingAlex wrote: | Does anyone know to what extent Apple differentiates between in- | app purchases and subscriptions? I've heard Netflix and Spotify | do not give Apple 30% because, well, that'd be kind of ridiculous | for these companies to give 30% of their revenue to Apple. | | But what about mid-sized companies? I pay a yearly subscription | fee to Headspace. If Apple is actually taking 30% of their | revenue because people access it via an iPhone? That... just | doesn't seem sustainable. | querulous wrote: | if you pay that subscription fee via the app store then apple | takes a 30% (or possibly 15%, in a few scenarios) cut | Yaina wrote: | You can't subscribe to Netflix and Spotify on the App Store | anymore. It was possible for a while, where both just handed | the costs down to customers. E.g. when Spotify costs 10$ on | their site, it used to cost 13$ when purchased through Apple. | | I know Spotify stopped supporting in-app purchases when Apple | Music came out, because even though both services are priced | similarly, from within the Apple ecosystem it seemed that | Spotify costs 30% more. And of course because of the anti- | steering provisions for Apps, Spotify couldn't even tell iOS | users that Spotify is cheaper when you visit their site. | xbar wrote: | How is Fanhouse content different than other in-app purchases? | xmly wrote: | So the subscription apple tax work-around does not work anymore | if you are making too much money? | salamandersauce wrote: | More like not enough money. Netflix and Spotify leaving the App | Store would be a big deal and piss off a lot of consumers. | Months old startup a handful have heard of? Perfect to extort | in Apple's eyes. | alpacaillama wrote: | Netflix and Spotify don't offer in-app purchases and come | under the reader rule within the appstore guidelines. At | least know about things before you talk about them dude. | hellisothers wrote: | Seems pretty disingenuous given they had to have known this would | happen (note that OnlyFans has no app) | distribot wrote: | OnlyFans wouldn't be allowed in the App Store since it is | essentially pornography. I am curious if they _would_ given the | chance, but they can 't | Jcowell wrote: | This makes me curious is Onlyfans has a PWA. Really wish more | websites did this going to go check right now. | | Can confirm it does. Functions just like a normal app (user | side) and since it doenst have any offline features there's | not any friction I can see a see as user. | | I wonder if there's a way for Safari to display a Add to Home | Screen Option App Banner. | vbezhenar wrote: | Reddit allows pornography in the app if you've chosen NSFW | setting. How OnlyFans is different? | Aerroon wrote: | Because Reddit is old and big. Banning it would piss off | lots of people. | | It's the same reason why Chrome, Safari, Firefox etc can | get away with it, despite clearly having accessible NSFW | content. | symlinkk wrote: | This is the real reason. Notice that there's no real | 4chan app on the App Store, even though it has both SFW | and NSFW boards, just like Reddit. Apple will bend their | own rules depending on who they're applying them to, they | have zero integrity. | threatofrain wrote: | The risk of a porn story and counter-narratives of non-porn | utility. Shipping and trucking has a risk of a trafficking | story, but it has much weightier counter-narratives of | salient utility. | azinman2 wrote: | Primary purpose. You can build a web browser that can load | porn, but that's not the raison d'etre of a web browser. | Similarly Reddit is far more not porn than porn. | querulous wrote: | reddit would likely get rejected by the app in today's | enforcement environment. discord was recently forced to | disable nsfw channels in the ios client | t-writescode wrote: | Number of users | | Loudness of users | allenu wrote: | Yeah, it's not like they put together this entire business and | then afterwards realized they'd have to pony up money to Apple. | If they didn't know up front, that's not great business | planning. | alpacaillama wrote: | I think this might be a part of their strategy. Do a well | timer PR push. | ThePowerOfFuet wrote: | OnlyFans has no app because of the nature of the content. | falcolas wrote: | Makes for a great soundbite though. "We had no idea going in | that stepping in front of this bus would hurt us." | Dah00n wrote: | "Amazon and Patreon doesn't get hit with a 30% tax. Why do | we?" would be less disingenuous. | beckler wrote: | Then why do Venmo and CashApp get a pass? Is Fanhouse trying to | leverage Apple's Payment APIs without paying or something? | smnrchrds wrote: | > _Then why do Venmo and CashApp get a pass?_ | | Don't give Apple any ideas. Next thing you know, they start | charging you 30% of each transaction and are working on a way | to send you an invoice for 30% of any transactions you do in | real life. | hellisothers wrote: | Those apps are not distributing content, I haven't installed | Fanhouse but from looking at their website it seems that you | can consume the content you're paying for through it. | Hamuko wrote: | So Netflix? | hellisothers wrote: | It's a subscription service and you're not paying for | individual content a-la-cart? We can play wack a mole all | day and find special carve outs by Apple but "what about- | ism" isn't the (or their) point, it's did they expect | this to happen or not. Surely they knew at some point the | tax man would come with absolute certainty so crying | (hyperbolic) foul now is... disingenuous. | tshaddox wrote: | I'm pretty sure Netflix and other streaming services give | 30% to Apple if you buy the subscription through Apple. | Don't they? | Jcowell wrote: | No they don't since they don't give the option. It sucks | that Apple isn't giving them the option to just not allow | In-app purchases at all when there's Patreon. | twostorytower wrote: | They don't allow you to sign up in the app. You have to | sign-up and subscribe via the web. App is login only. | stalfosknight wrote: | This is exactly what I'm thinking. | | I'm kind of exasperated with all of these apps / developers who | know what they're getting into when they create developer | accounts with Apple, go through all of the hard work and | expense of developing apps for the App Store only to whine and | tweet histrionics about how they don't like the rules after the | fact. | | If you want total freedom to do whatever the hell you want, | there's a platform for that called Android or Windows. | taylodl wrote: | Hey! Don't forget about Linux! :) | grouphugs wrote: | fuck apple | andjd wrote: | Down in the thread, they compare their platform to Patreon, which | has an app. Exclusive content is a substantial part of Patreon. | | I'd like a straight-forward explanation of why Patreon is allowed | to avoid in-app payments. It seems like a straight-forward | violation of apple's rules. Apple having its rules is one thing, | but applying them unevenly seems like a problem too, since it | protects a whole host of 'grandfathered' businesses from | competition. | Dah00n wrote: | If you are big enough the chance of getting hit by this | diminishes and if you do get hit you can make a deal (like | Amazon does) to pay less. Rules are for plebs and apps Apple | think it might copy some day. | Animats wrote: | Jasmine from Fanhouse is likely to get a speaking slot at the | upcoming Congressional hearings on Apple. | brailsafe wrote: | Something seems a bit sus here. There's a whole lot of "I'm poor | and on food stamps, relying on my brand new company to pay me as | a creator". Are they even "creating" on the platform? Seems like | they're some kind of middleman for every other service kind of | like hootsuite or something. Have they cleared that 1 million 15% | threshold already in 8 months? | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | That's a nice business you got there. Shame if anything were to | happen to it. | Yaina wrote: | People in the comments are right so far that this could be just a | website, but I think we can turn that around and say that Apple | is not providing any services that the developers of Fanhouse | really need or want. They just want to be on the store, and all | the services and APIs Apple provides aren't really features as | long as developers are forced to use them. | adolph wrote: | _fanhouse is a SFW platform where creators can monetize their | social media presence by posting about themselves and their | lives_ | | 1. Why would creators using fanhouse get to bypass Apple's tax? | | 2. Why is this being treated differently from Kindle, which | allows creators to distribute content via an app offered in the | App Store without paying 30% of ebook price? | alpacaillama wrote: | 2. Fanhouse not only has one off transactions but things like | pay to view pictures of someone etc | whywhywhywhy wrote: | It's time to stop asking "Why does Apple think they deserve 30% | of App Store revenue" and start asking "Why has Apple not | demanded 30% of web app revenue yet?". | | The justification of "We put all the hard work into building the | hardware, the OS and the stack so deserve a cut" still stands if | a website is opened using the Safari engine. If it doesn't stand | then neither does the App Store cut. | Black101 wrote: | > "Why has Apple not demanded 30% of web app revenue yet?" | | They would if they knew how. Which is probably why they block | features on the web so that they can't compete with native | apps. | stemlord wrote: | You're talking about webm right? | J5892 wrote: | The standard modern web in general. | | Mobile Safari is the Internet Explorer of the modern web. | lotsofpulp wrote: | A seller accepts $x because they are betting they cannot sell | at $x+1 at whatever scale they want to sell at. | | A buyer gives $x because they are betting they cannot buy at | $x-1 at whatever scale they want to buy at. | patagonia wrote: | How is Apple different than Amazon? Humans are bad at things we | can't touch. | | Imagine all physical goods shops had to be listed through a | "Microsoft shop store" if you're using the Edge browser. You | can't. Because that'd be dumb. | | But hey Apple made the phone and we sign away our soul and first | born when it comes to software. So it follows Apple can keep all, | all, every, globally, software vendor or creator or hobbyist from | putting an app on "their" phone unless it goes through Apple. | ApolloFortyNine wrote: | The antitrust case against Apple is so overdue it's embarrassing. | | What I don't get is people who defend it. Imagine Microsoft | taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you used | their OS to get there. Then would the defenders admit it's an | obvious abuse of a monopoly? What makes it different for Apple? | prepend wrote: | It's more like having a shop in a mall. | | Apple doesn't take 30% of anything using their phones. They | take 30% of anything installed and bought using their walled | garden/app store/api/etc. Similar to Windows store, Xbox, ps, | steam, etc etc. | | I used to be annoyed at Nintendo and Sega requiring their cut, | but got used to it. | | What makes it different is that Apple isn't a monopoly. You can | use Android or PCs or whatever. | | If we want this to change, we probably need some version of | right to repair that forces "right to sideload." | skyde wrote: | You are right but why not more people push for << right to | sideload " ? | | It would be easy to force apple to let you install android on | the hardware you paid for (the physical phone). | | But forcing them to keep their OS backward compatible with | some api used by some sideloaded app ... might be hard. | rhodysurf wrote: | You're missing the part where apple only allows users to | install apps through that App Store | adventured wrote: | > Imagine Microsoft taking 30% of every purchase you make | online because you used their OS to get there. Then would the | defenders admit it's an obvious abuse of a monopoly? What makes | it different for Apple? | | Yeah I'll defend against that setup. Your comparison makes no | sense. | | Apple isn't taking 30% of every purchase you make online | because you use an iPhone to shop on Amazon or Walmart. Why | would I need to imagine a scenario where Microsoft did such a | thing? | | The comparison would be: imagine if Microsoft had a dominant | software store tightly bound to Windows, and for any software | applications sold through that store - for use on your Windows | machine - Microsoft took a 30% cut of that sale. | bpye wrote: | Not just dominant. If Microsoft had the only software store | and mandated app distribution through the store. It is an | important different. | ApolloFortyNine wrote: | >The comparison would be: imagine if Microsoft had a dominant | software store tightly bound to Windows, and for any software | applications sold through that store - for use on your | Windows machine - Microsoft took a 30% cut of that sale. | | Well for that comparison to work, we'd also have to assume | Microsoft disabled installing unsigned software as well. | Which is what Apple does today. | | >Apple isn't taking 30% of every purchase you make online | because you use an iPhone to shop on Amazon or Walmart | | They try on digital goods, this is why Amazon has disabled | buying ebooks in the iOS app, and asks you to open your web | browser instead [1]. | | [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?node | Id=... | filoleg wrote: | >Well for that comparison to work, we'd also have to assume | Microsoft disabled installing unsigned software as well. | | Look no further than Xbox Store and how well you can run | unsigned code on it. | | Sure, you can buy a physical game copy, but there are two | issues with that: | | 1. Diskless versions of consoles are becoming more | commonplace, thus removing that option. | | 2. If you buy retail, it is still a cut to Microsoft, just | a smaller one. Because you pay the same price for physical | as you do for digital, except instead of the entire cut | going to MSFT, a part of it goes to the retail | establishment selling it. | | And before someone says "well, this is a gaming console, | not a phone/computing device", I will say that it has apps | (youtube/streaming services/etc.), it has a web browser, | and plenty other functionality not related to games. | | So I am struggling to draw a hard line here as to why it is | ok on Xbox, but not ok on smartphones (as long as there are | commonplace alternatives available that would prevent it | from being a monopoly, and Android is one such commonplace | alternative). | | EDIT: I stand corrected, apparently you can run unsigned | code officially on new Xbox consoles, and I should have | picked a better example. Thanks to people in the comments | correcting me on this, as I genuinely had no idea you could | run unsigned code on Xbox. Despite this, I believe my | general argument still stands though, because the same | situation with transaction cuts is happening with Sony's | and Nintendo's consoles, except you cannot run unsigned | code on those. | [deleted] | earthnail wrote: | Gaming console hardware is heavily subsidized by those | cuts. Apple hardware, in contrast, is sold with profit. | ElFitz wrote: | > Gaming console hardware is heavily subsidized by those | cuts. | | I was about to reply with skepticism, but after looking | online I found the following and have to reconsider my | doubts. This Apple vs Epic trial truly is a wondrous | thing | | https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/6/22422691/microsoft- | xbox-co... | gjsman-1000 wrote: | The problem with that though is that legally, there is no | difference between whether hardware is sold at profit or | not as to whether you can have an App Distribution | monopoly. | smoldesu wrote: | You actually can run unsigned code on the Xbox. It's a | bit of a hassle to get the developer account working, but | completely possible. It's how Retroarch made a native | Xbox app. | Krasnol wrote: | > And before someone says "well, this is a gaming | console, not a phone/computing device", I will say that | it has apps (youtube/streaming services/etc.), it has a | web browser, and plenty other functionality not related | to games. | | How much is the cut for those functionalities for MS? | filoleg wrote: | You are welcome to look at the leaked documents[0], and | they have a nice table showing cuts for all kinds of | transactions on Microsoft Store. | | Looks like currently it is 30% for games, 15% for apps | and app subscriptions, and they were exploring reducing | the game-related cuts down to 12%. Microsoft | spokesperson's reply to those leaked documents was "we | have no plans to change the revenue share for console | games at this time". | | Though I am not sure how much the 15% (microsoft cut for | app-related purchases) vs. 30% (apple's cut, or 15% if | the devs haven't made over $1 million in revenue this | year or the year before) difference matters here, because | I am struggling to figure out how the 15% vs. 30% | difference makes one a monopoly. If that's the argument, | then what's the magic number threshold that makes you a | monopoly after you cross it? And how does Apple's reduced | cut of 15% for devs with under $1mil in revenue play into | that? | | 0. https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/2/22415712/microsoft- | xbox-st... | mschuster91 wrote: | > If that's the argument, then what's the magic number | threshold that makes you a monopoly after you cross it? | | Let's assume a very generous 5% for payment costs (credit | cards are capped at 0.3% in the EU, but US cards with | their rewards can run up to 5% in merchant fees, and god | knows about the cost of doing business in other markets), | another very generous 5% for CDN/hosting (data traffic | isn't cheap, modern games easily run into triple digit GB | sizes, and gamers are _notorious_ for bringing down even | the largest CDNs on delivery dates), and another 5% for | profit and other costs (development), and you end up at | something like 15%. | | Anything above that is ripping people off. | filoleg wrote: | Cool, so does that mean that Sony/MSFT/Nintendo should be | sued for anti-monopoly here too, given that they take | over 15% for game-related transactions? | | Because my question was less about "how things should | ideally be", and more about "how much legal scrutiny can | this legal case withstand". | mschuster91 wrote: | > more about "how much legal scrutiny can this legal case | withstand". | | That is entirely a question of jurisdiction. The US is | famous for its deregulation, usury only covers loan | interest rates - whereas in Germany the limit in SS138 | BGB is something that is "obviously not in a fair | relationship between the payment and the value received | for it", plus our whole anti-trust regulation. | | The German Bundeskartellamt is already prosecuting the | big tech companies, the EU anti-trust agencies also have | woken up from their slumber... we will see. | KptMarchewa wrote: | >US cards with their rewards can run up to 5% in merchant | fees | | Americans so much love freedom for companies to fleece | them off. | mschuster91 wrote: | The insidious thing that people never get taught or | notice is that while, yes, you get 5% cashback as a | customer, the store will eventually raise its prices by | 5% to make up the higher CC fees. | torstenvl wrote: | Which still works out in favor of the debtor, because: | (a) they reap the benefit in the meantime; and (b) rising | prices benefit retail workers at the expense of those | living off savings and investments | AussieWog93 wrote: | You can actually run unsigned code on a retail Xbox One | console officially. There are ports of RetroArch to it | and all. | | I suspect this permissiveness was a major reason it was | never hacked throughout its full 8 year lifespan - | homebrewers didn't need to enable piracy to do what they | wanted. | immackay wrote: | If installing with a developer account is official, then | similarly you can run unsigned code on iOS officially. | The process is quite similar to xbox. | InvertedRhodium wrote: | For free? | amelius wrote: | Probably the argument is that they (1) host the software in the | cloud which costs them money, and (2) they review software for | e.g. security issues which costs them money. | | Anyway, the EU is coming for them: | | https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro... | | > The Digital Markets Act (DMA) establishes a set of narrowly | defined objective criteria for qualifying a large online | platform as a so-called "gatekeeper". | [deleted] | pier25 wrote: | Regarding your two points, in 2020 Apple claimed there were | about 23M developers [1] and they charge $99 every year. | | Even if only 50% of those 23M devs are actually paying the | $99 fee that is still over $1B a year. | | [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples- | wwdc-2020-kick... | mkishi wrote: | It does cost them money, but I can't wrap my mind on why | that's not subsidized by the rest of the Apple machine. | | Didn't customers pay a premium for Apple hardware because of | the unified ecosystem and superior security to begin with? | And developers also pay a premium to be on the App Store | ($99+30%) because it costs them money to create the | infrastructure and ensure safety? | | I'm pretty ignorant on the whole situation, but it does sound | nice to be Apple. Raking in hundreds of billions while | charging premiums on both sides, convincing them it's for | their own good. Meanwhile, customers and developers descend | into a feedback loop of even heavier dependence on Apple: the | more customers there are, the more devs have a financial | necessity to publish apps on the platform, the more value the | platform has, the more customers they get. | | People are quick to point out Apple is the one providing for | developers, who should be honored to be able to get on the | App Store for a 30% cut. But, really, how many users would | Apple have without those apps? They do deserve their cut, but | at some point it went from a symbiotic relationship to "oil | the Apple machine." The economies of scale simply work in | their favor here. | marsdepinski wrote: | Missing the point they the only way to install apps on an | IPhone is the app store. If you had choice to freely download | apps from the internet, this would not be a monopoly abuse | issue. Then sure charge on the app store whatever you want, | allow competing so stores that also offer reviewed software. | michaelmrose wrote: | Correct if they did this virtually every really big player | would opt out and offer a package on their website. See the | MS and apple desktop store. | manigandham wrote: | Many apps are free so that argument doesn't hold up. Also 30% | of subscription revenue from services they don't run just | because it was purchased through the App Store is further | proof that the fee is just rent seeking. | nipponese wrote: | The argument is that it's industry standard. Microsoft and | Sony also take 30% | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/video- | games/2021/05/07/playst... | wvenable wrote: | Microsoft and Sony take 30% of game revenue. A piece of | software is sold and they take a cut. They also take a cut | of in app purchases of game expansions and game items. | | Apple, on the other hand, wants to take a cut of every non- | physical item purchase on their platform. They also don't | want any non-physical item purchases related to apps to | occur off their platform. They could even take a cut of | physical item purchases if they want; they just decided | they don't want to (for obvious reasons). | | I agree it's similar but it's also not exactly the same. | ajmurmann wrote: | I don't think I see the difference in what you are | describing Sony does vs Apple does. What's the non- | physical items sold on PlayStation that Sony doesn't take | a cut for? | wvenable wrote: | That's not what I mean. Take this example: Fanhouse is an | app that sells a digital products created by end users | and pays those creators for the content that end users | subscribe to. | | In terms of business relationship and product something | like this can't exist on gaming platforms. Game platforms | are strictly for publishers to sell their own gaming | content. | | iOS is a gateway to businesses selling both physical and | digital wares of all types. By their good graces, they | don't force physical items through their payment | processor but they do for digital goods regardless of | what that good is. | pessimizer wrote: | Price-fixing as a defense is so odd. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | The standard argument that a 30% is ok for video games but | not ok for the App Store is that games are special and | different. I don't find it convincing. I think a better | argument is that a 30% cut is wrong full stop, but going | after phone app stores is a higher enforcement priority | because the stakes are higher. An increasing portion of | commerce is digital, and increasing portion is happening on | phones. Apple will try to expand the coverage of the 30% | cut until someone makes them stop. The only way they can | keep growing as a 2 trillion dollar company is to take an | increasing cut of the world's economic activity. | bsaul wrote: | The argument with videogame consoles was that console | makers were actually loosing money on each console sold, | and would make up for it by taking a larger cut on each | game sold. | | This is of course _very_ different from apple business | model. | michaelmrose wrote: | It's not ok period if the owner of the device can't | choose to install software themselves. | manigandham wrote: | There are alternate ways to get software on those | platforms. There isn't on Apple mobile devices. | dwaite wrote: | Citation needed? (For Playstation, XBox) | michaelmrose wrote: | That too isn't ok | [deleted] | LocalH wrote: | "Industry standard", by itself, is meaningless. What if | "industry standard" was 75%? | amelius wrote: | What happens in a niche market doesn't necessarily apply to | a broader market. | | Also, that's a "but they do it too" fallacy. | threatofrain wrote: | Why not examine Apple against other similar businesses for a | better comparison? For example, against Nintendo, Amazon, or | Walmart? | | The web isn't Apple's store. When you go on the web, the fact | that the inhabitants of the web are more or less trustworthy | isn't Apple's doing. Customers who go on the web can't assume | that anyone can intermediate on their behalf. | | Why lead the conversation with such a misfit example when there | are better ones? | KaoruAoiShiho wrote: | Cause Apple only has like 40% marketshare. | eikenberry wrote: | Anti-trust laws are about competition, not strictly about | monopolies. They could be (and should be IMO) applied much | more broadly. | bmitc wrote: | Is it really about market share or market power, and | subsequent abuse of that power? | 3pt14159 wrote: | Microsoft takes 30% of xbox purchases. That's the argument. | | Apple doesn't take 30% of every purchase you make online. | You're free to use a browser and purchase there where Apple | doesn't take a cut. | | I'm not saying I agree with this, and I think 30% is about | triple what's reasonable, but if we're going to rail against | Apple here, we should include Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft | too. | insert_coin wrote: | Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any market. | echelon wrote: | They control computing for 50% of Americans. Not games, not | movies. _All computing._ | | And all of the commerce around that computing. | | You have to pay their tax to interact with Apple customers in | any way. | | Who are Apple customers? 50% of Americans. | | It's a protection racket and it's anticompetitive af. | | Furthermore, you can't use your own software stack / | runtimes, have to dance to arbitrary rules, and can't deploy | or update when you want or need to. | | Apple got this by building an awesome product, but they also | played an incredibly evil game that puts Microsoft to shame. | | "We're protecting customers" really means "we're tying all of | your hands and forcing you to walk the plank". | | I totally get how you love your shiny pocket device and you | own Apple shares (and may even work there), but this company | is destroying our industry and making it unfathomably hard | for startups to get off the ground and succeed. | | Imagine if Apple hadn't made these draconian choices. We'd | still have the technology we have today, but startups would | be able to deploy when and how they want. And they wouldn't | have to pay their margins away. | insert_coin wrote: | Yeah, computing is not a market. | | I get you are trying to win an easy sentimental argument, | but making your own market definitions will not make them a | monopoly. | | Apple sells products, not "computing". In no market where | they sell products they have a monopoly. | throwaway3699 wrote: | How is computing not a market?? | | Computing covers many of the things people do in a modern | society, including: | | - Communication | | - Banking | | - Investing & trading | | - Finding information | | - Applying to jobs | | In what world is that not a critical market? | devit wrote: | They have a monopoly on devices running iOS apps, and a | monopoly on channels to deliver mobile software to anyone | who uses an iPhone (i.e. either their App Store or | Safari). | singlow wrote: | So Does GM have a monopoly on Chevrolets? Does that mean | they can be regulated as a monopoly? Chevrolets compete | with Fords and Mercedes and Honda, etc; so having a | monopoly on your own brand is not a monopoly. I have both | an Android phone and an iPhone, so when I hear that Apple | has a phone monopoly it just seems like dumb whining. | ApolloFortyNine wrote: | >Apple got this by building an awesome product, but they | also played an incredibly evil game that puts Microsoft to | shame. | | It really is funny how we went from a major anti trust case | against Microsoft for simply bundling a web browser with | their OS [1]. The original decision in that case was | actually to break up Microsoft, though was lost on appeal. | And here we have Apple doing many magnitudes worse. Even in | this original antitrust case, you could always bypass | Microsoft entirely to install whatever software you wished. | Apple has quite literally never allowed that possibility, | has no intention of doing so, and any software you develop | for the platform entitles Apple to a 30% cut. There's many | markets with a profit margin under 10%, and here we have | Apple taking 30%. | | And people defend them for it. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsof | t_Cor.... | echelon wrote: | Apple fans are doing evil. They just don't realize it. | They're too awestruck by the brand to understand the harm | it does. | | Talk to your legislators. That is the way to fix this | tribulation. | whydoibother wrote: | Wanting a sane and stable and reliable device is doing | evil? Oh please. If the changes happened that people (who | apparently don't use iOS) wanted, iOS would turn into the | godawful shitshow that is Android. No thanks. | | If you don't like Apple, boycott them. Easy. | forty wrote: | That people don't like the UX of Android, I totally | understand (I did not like iOS' last time I tried, so it | makes sense to me that someone that likes it doesn't like | Android's). | | But I don't understand why you would suggest Android is | unstable and reliable. I have been using miscellaneous | Android devices for some time now, and I don't remember | having any stability or reliability issues with the OS. | | As for the "boycott", I agree as a user, it's easy. But | as a an app developer it's certainly much tougher given | their large market share. | wvenable wrote: | > Wanting a sane and stable and reliable device is doing | evil? | | That can be true while at the same time being true that | Apple is taking advantage of their position to extort | money from developers and end users. | kristiandupont wrote: | >If you don't like Apple, boycott them. Easy | | If your customers demand an iOS app, boycotting them is | not _easy_. It 's expensive either way. | throw-away_42 wrote: | > and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats | to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus | Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others | | More than "simply bundling a web browser". | ksec wrote: | Define Monopoly? | | Apple have ~65% Market Share in US and over 70% in Japan. | Dah00n wrote: | >A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is | the only supplier of a particular commodity. | | -Wikipedia | | It gets defined to death every time we have this | discussion. Apple has a de-facto monopoly on the app store | no matter if their phones have 1% or 100% of the market | share of phones. This isn't about market share but if they | abuse their position/control _on the app store_. | | Is Apple the "only supplier of a particular commodity" on | the app store? | ksec wrote: | I dont disagree with you. I never said they dont have a | monopoly, my reply was in reference to the OP comment | around this post that Apple does not have monopoly or | majority position in any market. The same thing utter out | of Tim Cook month which is a spin or lying by omission. | stalfosknight wrote: | That's like saying my landlord has a monopoly on | collecting rent from every apartment in the building they | own. Well duh! They built the damn thing from scratch. To | make it about how Apple is somehow being abusive by | setting the rules of the road and collecting tolls on | their own property is asinine. | heavyset_go wrote: | Apple certainly has a duopoly with Google in both the mobile | operating systems market, and the mobile app distribution | market. | | iOS has 60% of the market in the US[1], and Android has 40%, | and Google and the App Store is responsible for 100% more | revenue than the Play Store[2]. | | Also, layman definitions of monopoly do not matter when it | comes to antitrust laws[3]: | | > _Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying | rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand | for a firm with significant and durable market power -- that | is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude | competitors. That is how that term is used here: a | "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market | power._ | | [1] https://deviceatlas.com/blog/android-v-ios-market-share | | [2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ | | [3] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition- | guidance/guide-a... | prepend wrote: | Your stats show web traffic, not sales or market share. | | For a monopoly you want to show market dominance by | dollars, not activity. | | By sales units, Android dominates [0] with 327k vs iOS' 38k | (most recent quarter was 2019-q3). | | [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartph | one_S... | Daishiman wrote: | You're being pedantic. It's the second of only two | alternatives; it counts as monopoly power here and | everywhere. | jfrunyon wrote: | https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united- | sta... | | iOS has 60% of the market in the US. This is cited | (repeatedly) by the exact same Wikipedia article you | looked at. | | PS: web traffic is largely a function of market share at | this granularity. | greggman3 wrote: | there is no "world government" to handle world monopolys. | There is only country governments the handle monopolys in | their own market. | | https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united- | sta... | bosswipe wrote: | It's interesting to think that if Apple had been more popular | in the 90s then the DOJ wouldn't have been able to stop | Microsoft and between them they could have strangled the | nascent open web. | | In this way a monopoly is actually better for consumers then | a duopoly because it allows the government to step in. | 3grdlurker wrote: | I just like Apple's App Store the way that it is. I've been | through so many technology stacks and it I find their platform | a joy to work with. The SDKs are coherent, very well- | architected, extremely easy to use, and I have access to a user | base that has very high adoption rates of the latest software | versions so that I don't have to worry so much about | fragmentation. It's the happiest I've been as a coder, so I | feel that the 30% cut is a fair price to pay. | | edit: So I answered the question and I'm getting downvoted to | oblivion. Why do people even bother asking for other people's | perspectives. | michaelmrose wrote: | Nobody believes it's not ok for developers to opt in at 30% | the point is that they are forcing them to do so by retaining | control of devices after they have sold them. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | When your app has revenues of $100M a month, let's see if you | think Apple is providing you $30M worth of value. | | Sure, if you have 2 sales a month, I guess Apple is providing | you $0.60 of revenue. That's not what this thread is about. | filoleg wrote: | You can have more than 2 sales. If you are making under | $1mil in app revenue in a year, Apple takes a 15% cut | instead of 30%. | moogly wrote: | You can thank Epic for that recent change. | chrisseaton wrote: | > When your app has revenues of $100M a month, let's see if | you think Apple is providing you $30M worth of value. | | Lol they just told you they think it's reasonable! | | Why bother asking for someone's opinion if we're just going | to berate them for it? | | I think the Apple cut is justified because Apple provide | the best platform. If someone can provide a better platform | for a smaller cut people would move to it. | ALittleLight wrote: | No, they wouldn't. That's the point. Apple and Google | control the market for mobile phone apps. | | You could invent the best possible app store and take | nothing as a cut and get no users because Apple wouldn't | permit your app store and so you'd lose. | | Apple uses their hardware market dominance to control the | software market and extracts rent from people who want to | sell software on their hardware. That's what people are | complaining about. | | "Why don't they just invent their own hardware, phone OS, | and app store?" Hmm, yes, why not? | threatofrain wrote: | It's notable that Google does allow their customers to | side-load apps. | chrisseaton wrote: | > No, they wouldn't. | | I don't know why you think that. If someone developed a | compelling new mobile platform that supported side- | loading apps why wouldn't you move to it since that's | what you value? | | > Apple uses their hardware market dominance | | It's dominant because it's good. Part of the reason it's | good is because it's locked down. If it wasn't locked | down it wouldn't be as good. The Android experience is | miserable because they aren't as locked down. | | > extracts rent from people who want to sell software on | their hardware | | I don't know what to say apart from this seems the most | honest and reasonable thing in the world to me. They | provide a service with legitimate value and ask people to | pay for access to it. | malka wrote: | why would i give a fuck about the big players ? their | paying 30M allows other to have high quality of service for | close to nothing. | | They can always go away from iOS it they think it is not a | fair deal. No one is pointing a gun to their head. | threatofrain wrote: | You're saying this thread is about the big players and not | the small ones? And that's why this open question to HN | developers isn't really asking for their experiences, not | unless they're in the hundred million territory? | Supermancho wrote: | > You're saying this thread is about the big players and | not the small ones? | | It's not about relative revenue, but illustrating the | extent of the exploitation. | [deleted] | smoldesu wrote: | I came from this in the opposite direction. I grew up | programming on an iMac, but ended up switching to Linux when | Macports/Homebrew started stagnating a few years ago. I was | blown away by how simple and well-distributed everything was. | Package management wasn't a nightmare, the shell respected | administrator authority, I had fully updated coreutils, | 32-bit apps/libs... the list goes on. I understand why people | use MacOS, but defending it from a development standpoint has | started to look asinine in recent years. | GreaterFool wrote: | Linux is developer friendly but user experience is abysmal. | | I'm a developer. I grew up with Linux. | | I can't wait for Apple to turn MacOS into iOS with extras. | | Linus himself said that Chromebook (with a shell) looks | appealing. | | I just want iOS with a shell and file system running on | fanless M1 without catching fire! | manigandham wrote: | The choice that people want is the ability to have other App | Stores, or direct installation. This changes nothing for | people like you while giving more opportunities for others. | chrisseaton wrote: | > The choice that people want is the ability to have other | App Stores, or direct installation. | | Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this | functionality? Apple presumably? | flutas wrote: | Hmm, well Apple already has seemingly got their profit | from the device when it was...purchased the first time? | | Or should phones just become a subscription service | overall so that you can never actually own your own | hardware? | chrisseaton wrote: | The answer to both questions is... it's up to Apple. When | you design and build a product it'd be up to you how you | design for your revenue. | | If Apple allowed side-loading apps or custom app stores | that'd cost them more to build and support that | functionality, and it would damage their existing | functionality through extra complexity and security | surface, harming their existing happy customers. They | don't want to do it. Why should they? Use Android if you | have a problem with it. | pfranz wrote: | I think 30% is absurd, but that would definitely change | things for every user. I don't want to install Adobe's | store because I need to use their PDF reader. I don't want | to install Microsoft's store because I need to use Teams or | Outlook for work. | | Other App Stores mean that companies get to make that | decision--not end users. How could it be otherwise? | CharlesW wrote: | > _The choice that people want is the ability to have other | App Stores, or direct installation._ | | I am "people" and I absolutely _do not_ want app developers | creating their own silo 'd app stores. | | The last thing I want to do is download separate app stores | for every major app vendor on my phone, to give them all my | credit card info, to have per-store standards for warning | me about privacy issues, to have different policies and UIs | for managing subscriptions, etc. This is a technology | nightmare. | xdennis wrote: | Having the ability to install non-Apple-approved | applications doesn't remove your ability to install | Apple-approved applications. | [deleted] | mewse-hn wrote: | I just checked and I'm surprised Patreon has an iOS app. I wonder | how they're dodging this type of shakedown. | asimjalis wrote: | Why can't Fanhouse sell art through a web app? | Firebrand wrote: | How timely for Instagram's CEO to say the quiet part out loud and | announce that they'll be helping content creators to get around | Apple's 30% cut today: | | https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/09/instagram-ceo-facebook-will-... | | I think Zuckerberg was right when he said Apple's practices have | ultimately benefited Facebook in eliminating any competition. | bgandrew wrote: | Apple is just milking people at this point. Their devices are | subpar for the cost and customer treatment is sometimes even | worse. | RandallBrown wrote: | How does Fanhouse work? | | > We pay creators 90% of earnings. Now, Apple is threatening to | remove Fanhouse from the app store unless we give them 30% of | creator earnings. | | Apple doesn't know anything about how much Fanhouse gives to | creators. They just want their 30% (15% up to a million) for | digital content transactions made within the app. | | If someone pays $10 in the Fanhouse app then Apple is going to | ask for $3 (or $1.50 if they haven't made $1 million so far this | year or last year). | | I understand that Fanhouse wants to give $9 of those dollars to | the creator. They can, but they still owe their fee to Apple. | Unfortunately that ends up being more money than the whole | transaction so the economics just don't work. | | What amount is fair for Apple to charge for payment processing | and the infrastructure to actually make the purchases? | barbazoo wrote: | > What amount is fair for Apple to charge for payment | processing and the infrastructure to actually make the | purchases? | | They can charge whatever they want as long as they give | developers the alternative to use a different payment provider. | See Discussions around exemptions for Netflix for instance. | RandallBrown wrote: | What exemptions does Netflix have? They aren't using their | own payment provider since you can't actually pay for | anything from within the app. | sangnoir wrote: | > What exemptions does Netflix have? | | Netflix is exempted from mandatory usage of Apple's payment | platform. OP stated that Apple is threatening to pull the | app if she does the same thing that Netflix gets away with: | avoid using Apple's payment platform, and set up payments | outside of the app. For a company that loves demanding its | partners adopt Most-Favored Nation clauses, Apple sure does | hate treating its app developers the same. | RandallBrown wrote: | Netflix doesn't take payment in its iOS app as far as I | can find. | | They are allowed to take payment on their website for a | subscription, but so is any other developer. | kristiandupont wrote: | >so is any other developer | | No, they are not. That was what the whole Hey debacle was | about. Netflix and Spotify have special privileges there. | querulous wrote: | the twitter thread/verge article are about how this is | not true for fanhouse, at the very least. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-09 23:01 UTC)