191–200 of 593 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you engage with those actors accepting the terms that is exactly what it means.
...no. You can't meaningfully accept terms when they are a requirement to enter the market.
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,…
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 rel…
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 antit…
The choice is to not use iOS. You’re argument is predicated on using iOS, which is a false equivalency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also drew a line between in app and non in app transactions.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 apply…
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_Smartphone_S...
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 apply…
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_Smartphone_S...
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
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…
> 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.