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

571–580 of 593 posts

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

#571

Post by Dylan16807 »

threatofrain wrote: post #543
wernercd wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct... let me know what is if this isn't because companies colluding to set prices? not sure what I'm missing if this isn't it...

How is the answer misplaced? It's saying that you don't need price collusion or racketeering or mens rea of any sort to informally converge on a position.

> It's saying that you don't need price collusion or racketeering or mens rea of any sort to informally converge on a position.

It is saying that, but that's not a reply to the question.

The question wasn't "What is it?", as in, "What is this, if it's not collusion?"

The question was "What is?", as in, "What would it take to count as collusion, if this doesn't?"

"This isn't collusion, it's just the market" addresses the former question. It doesn't address the later question, the one that was asked.

With the implication that a super narrow definition of collusion is not very useful.

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

#572

Post by heavyset_go »

martimarkov wrote: post #542
manigandham wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because I think they service me better this way. I don’t want to have an ecosystem that allows malware to be an option. I explicitly bought my iOS device so that all software that is possible to be installed will always be vetted. I don’t have to worry about my parents being tricked by either maliciously crafted websites or false promises like cheaper price but they get all your data. Companies are not going to be up…

> Because I think they service me better this way. I don’t want to have an ecosystem that allows malware to be an option.

You already have one. iOS exploits and vulnerabilities are cheaper than Android exploits because they're so plentiful. The App Store was responsible for shipping hundreds of millions of copies of Xcodeghost, as well.

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

#573

Post by falcolas »

Dah00n wrote: post #253
falcolas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes for a great soundbite though. "We had no idea going in that stepping in front of this bus would hurt us."

"Amazon and Patreon doesn't get hit with a 30% tax. Why do we?" would be less disingenuous.

Amazon (Kindle) and Patreon don't offer purchasing in their apps, exactly so they aren't charged 30%.

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

#574

Post by LatteLazy »

otterley wrote: post #566
LatteLazy wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The debate over whether app stores are a monopoly/oligopoly etc is pretty well gone over here isn't it? I won't waste your time repeating those points. Interestingly, last time I checked 80% of iPhone users would not consider switching when surveyed (well done Apple). I wonder if forcing an open market and even cross compatability would be a better semi-solution...

That certain people are angry about a situation such as this, despite the widespread evidence of customer satisfaction, speaks a lot about people’s priorities, I think.

Again, this is a deflection though isn't it? There will always be other issues in the world, so we should deal with everything else before we engage with apple?

And remember, users aren't the customers in this market, they're the product. The customer is the company being asked to fork over 30% just to access those users (who already paid for the phone and the data to connect it...).

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

#575

Post by mdoms »

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.

I don't know about USA but over here it's very common for manufacturers to print their MSRP on their packaging. Retailers are free to charge whatever price they want, the MSRP is simply the recommended price. It's not unusual for retailers to charge more.

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

#576

Post by stale2002 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #565
stale2002 wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would the court's opinion change my What it would change is how you "don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. " Once the court trial is over, you will know "how" it should be described as illegal, as before, you were incorrect on not being able to say why it was illegal. And what it will do is help you understand why comments that you make such as "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones…

> you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged You're just inventing random things that I don't think and haven't said. I don't know know where you got 'rigged' from for example. That's not a quote from me or an intelligent interpretation of what I've said. If you find yourself constantly replying 'so you're saying' or 'so you'll say' stop and think why you think you need to rephrase everything and spe…

> You're just inventing random things

You compared the apple court cases to the salem witch trials, and compared it to a "morally unjust witch hunt".

Oh sorry, you said "Maybe there's a parallel there?". Not like that matters though. It is obvious what you are attempting to say here.

Like, C'mon. By comparing a current anti-trust court case, to the salem witch trials, you are attempting to delegitimize the process.

When you say stuff like "Maybe there's a parallel there?", you are attempting to imply that the current trials are similar to the salem witch trials. Thats what you are saying when you asking if there is a parallel there.

You even said "Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is (illegal)"

You straight up asked why the courts opinion on something, would change your opinion on whether it "IS" illegal. (Yes, you also included the word "should", but you also said "is" as well)

If a court says that Apple's actions are illegal, then that is a pretty good reason for you to change your mind on whether those actions are illegal, and it is silly for you to then compare well respected judges, and uncontroversial laws, to the freaking salem witch trials!

You can't just back off from your comparison to the salem witch trials now. It is clear that you are attempting to delegitimize the trial.

That is an extreme comparison. You can't just make that comparison, and then get surprised when I point out how extreme that comparison is.

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

#577

Post by threatofrain »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #571
threatofrain wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the answer misplaced? It's saying that you don't need price collusion or racketeering or mens rea of any sort to informally converge on a position.

> It's saying that you don't need price collusion or racketeering or mens rea of any sort to informally converge on a position. It is saying that, but that's not a reply to the question. The question wasn't "What is it?", as in, "What is this, if it's not collusion?" The question was "What is?", as in, "What would it take to count as collusion, if this doesn't?" "This isn't collusion, it's just the market" addresses…

This form of rhetorical questioning is a pretty common idiom.

"If this isn't stealing, than what is?"

That's not an open invitation for elucidation on property laws. It's an assertion in the form of a question.

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

#578

Post by jonny_eh »

taylodl wrote: post #129
jonny_eh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Apple Pay works great on the web, but doesn't charge a 30% fee.

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…

But if you make a purchase within the app, the developer should be able to charge their user however they want (Apple Pay, Paypal, CC directly). Wal-Mart doesn't get a share of every game I buy on my Xbox even if I bought the console off a shelf at Wal-Mart.

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

#579

Post by Dylan16807 »

threatofrain wrote: post #577
Dylan16807 wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's saying that you don't need price collusion or racketeering or mens rea of any sort to informally converge on a position. It is saying that, but that's not a reply to the question. The question wasn't "What is it?", as in, "What is this, if it's not collusion?" The question was "What is?", as in, "What would it take to count as collusion, if this doesn't?" "This isn't collusion, it's just the market" addresses…

This form of rhetorical questioning is a pretty common idiom. "If this isn't stealing, than what is?" That's not an open invitation for elucidation on property laws. It's an assertion in the form of a question.

I agree with everything you have said there.

In that situation, the question being asked is "what would they have to do for you to accuse them of stealing?", and there's an implication/assertion that your definition of "stealing" is too narrow.

Replying with "this isn't stealing, it's borrowing" doesn't answer the question, and it's ignoring the implication/assertion.

And that's basically what martimarkov did. They didn't say a single word that addresses the implication that such a narrow anti-collusion rule is too weak.

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

#580

Post by baby »

bruceb wrote: post #207
baby wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

What features? Not every app needs access to your camera.
Post reply on HN