[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)