Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 593 posts

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#511

Post by manigandham »

martimarkov wrote: post #477
Karunamon wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the entire definition of "open" and "closed" platforms is an arbitrary one dictated by the platform creator. There is no reason that iOS (and every game console for that matter) can't run arbitrary programs provided by the person who bought and paid for the device other than obstinance in service of rent seeking. Why should "closed" platforms (i.e. ones where the user doesn't get to decide) even be allowed to…

Because the user decided to buy into a closed platform. He could have chosen an open Android platform. My parents chose iOS over Android for the security, ease of use, unification AND the App Store. I’d say stop forcing your agenda on the users. They have the right to choose what they want. They voted with their money and do it each year.

None of that is lost with the ability to have alternative app stores. Creating more choice is the the opposite of forcing anything on users.

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#512

Post by notSupplied »

defaultname wrote: post #302
smnrchrds wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 a…

Hence, the phrase "gerrymandering" the boundaries.

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#513

Post by CubsFan1060 »

smoldesu wrote: post #37
CubsFan1060 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 manufactur…

Yeah, I exist.

Let’s be clear, I don’t do any of this based on how much Apple gets. I have had a lot of bad experiences with developers abusing my information (too many emails, unsubscribe doesn’t work, selling email address) that it’s simply a game I’m not going to play anymore. This isn’t something I worry about with someone like Netflix. But the hundreds of dollars I’ve spent with small developers won’t happen otherwise.

On top of it, ever try to cancel a subscription? Wall Street Journal is one that I’ve had twice in the last 10 years. Once was through their website. When I cancelled, I had to call and got a sales pitch… through 3 reps.

The next was through Apple. Cancelling was one click.

I get why developers and people like these. As a customer I hate them. And I’m just not going to do it anymore.

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#514

Post by stale2002 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #395
stale2002 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations on having now made a falsifiable prediction! I will absolutely make sure to save this comment, and come back to you in a couple months. I think that at least some, of Apple's decisions are illegally anti-competitive, and that the judge in the epic vs apple case, will at least partially rule against Apple, on some fronts. And your position, is that you think that nothing at all that Apple is doing is i…

I think you've misread my comments. I didn't predict anything. I asked if it had been found to be illegal. It hasn't. So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. Apple clearly believe it's legal, and no authority has given an opinion otherwise yet. > And your position, is that you think ... that no judge will rule against them Sorry I'm afraid you've misread again - I didn't say this anywhere. Where do you…

> I think you've misread my comments.

No, I really didn't.

If you agreed with me that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, then you wouldn't ask why/how/when their actions are illegal.

So yes, by asking me why/how/when their actions are illegal, you are disagreeing with me. Thats what it means to ask that. We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal.

> So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'.

When you say "I don't know how", that is a disagreement with me. You are saying that you do not see how their actions are illegal.

And my response, to you casting doubt on their actions being illegal (By saying that you "do not see how" they are illegal), is that I will show you why the actions are illegal, in a couple months.

And then you can re-evaluate your previous confusion as to "not seeing how" their actions are illegal, when that court decision is made.

I am pretty sure that I am right on this. And I'll be able to show this to you, when the court decision happens, and you can understand why you were incorrect to doubt that their actions are illegal.

> Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be?

By the fact that you are saying things like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'."

You are saying that you do not know how Apple's actions could be described as illegal, and I am saying that the court case will show you how.

Thats what it means to say stuff like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'" It means that you don't think that their actions are illegal.

I also see that you are saying things like "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", which is implying that you don't think that they are engaging in illegal/anti-trust behavior.

But like I said, this will all be settled in a couple months, and you will be able to see why it was incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.

You will be able to look back, and understand why it is incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#515

Post by manigandham »

martimarkov wrote: post #463
manigandham wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don’t install it then. You can use other software. Why would you limit everyone else rather than make a choice for yourself?

Then don’t buy an iPhone. Same question to you.

Do you block ads on the web? If you do, then why don't you just choose a different site instead? Aren't the publishers and advertisers entitled to their cut for producing and delivering your content?

Mobile phones are critical computing devices, even taking over as wallets and keys for many people. There should be some standard of freedom enforced when half of the market is effectively controlled by a single massive company. Why is the profit motive of this particular corporation so much more important than serving users (and developers) better?

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#516

Post by manigandham »

chrisseaton wrote: post #371
manigandham wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And? Microsoft does that for Windows, and you know Apple already does it for MacOS right? Anyone who wants to list on the App Store can could still continue doing so and pay directly. The fees right now don't make sense anyway as many apps are free while others have to pay a cut for services that Apple has nothing to do with.

> and you know Apple already does it for MacOS right? Possibly that experience led them to not do it when they had the clean slate of iOS.

Yet MacOS is doing fine, even after introducing its own App Store. And the iPhone originally started with no apps and added them as user interest grew. Apple knows people would like this, and they have the resources to easily make it happen.

The primary reason, as clearly shown by the way fees are currently levied, is purely for profit.

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#517

Post by CubsFan1060 »

mdoms wrote: post #51
CubsFan1060 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Again, I’m only one person, but I’m fine with that. I’d choose the Apple one.

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#518

Post by deadmutex »

valparaiso wrote: post #431
querulous wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no. you can't even mention other payment methods

Like you can’t mention on package of your product in Walmart that your product is cheaper on your website. No business allows this.

> No business allows this

IIRC, Progressive Insurance? had car insurance ads where they said that they'd show insurance rates for similar coverage from the competitors next to their quote.

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#519

Post by Yaina »

defaultname wrote: post #485
smoldesu wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web." There are a lot of anti-Apple arguments a passionate critic might leverage, but claiming that Safari is "notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web" is just foolish. It is laughable nonsense.

There is a lot of precedence that Apple is very reluctant to implement web-app standards, that could compete with the app store.

For some opinion pieces you can search for "Safari is the new Internet Explore"

Re: Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning

#520

Post by defaultname »

notSupplied wrote: post #512
defaultname wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Hence, the phrase "gerrymandering" the boundaries.

This is another thread where anything contrary the mob is going to hit -4, but here I am because such things are a bit fun.

I replied to someone specifically claiming that Apple made an exception for the all powerful Netflix, but that Hey was too small to get the same exception -- it's just big v small. In actuality Apple has a "gerrymandered" broad set of categories that are exempt (whether you are a garage company or a multinational), otherwise you have to provide basic functionality in your app without such a subscription. Hey didn't fit in the categories, and they didn't provide the functionality.

I may disagree with Apple on this -- and there should be an App label denoting that external subscriptions are necessary -- however phrasing and truth actually matters.

Post reply on HN