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

471–480 of 593 posts

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

#471

Post by martimarkov »

wernercd wrote: post #450
heavyset_go wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and Google doesn't ban use of other payment processors They certainly do on the Play Store. Developers have until September of this year to comply with Google's rule to take 30% of sales and use its payment system[1] in their apps. It's clearly more price fixing on the part of the Apple and Google mobile app distribution and payments cartel. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...

I hadn't heard that. Thanks for the new info. They'd be another store I'd avoid like the plague if I was selling stuff. if this isn't collusion and racketeering, then what is?

The market. Microsoft and Sony have been doing it for years.

So has Epic’s parent company

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

#472

Post by JamesSwift »

sagarm wrote: post #210
toast0 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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.

"Proper" app development treats the network as optional. Its surprising how spotty connectivity is in the real world, and so its a huge UX boost to load data predicatively when possible (not to mention that running offline-first is a magical experience for the user).

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

#473

Post by mkishi »

_jal wrote: post #389
mkishi wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> Didn't customers pay a premium for Apple hardware because of the unified ecosystem and superior security to begin with Not defending Apple, but offering forever-services for one-time fees is a great way to go out of business. I would not expect the App Store to be subsidized by hardware sales. Also, assuming you accept the premise in the first place, it makes sense to charge the developer, who is the one generating…

Not completely, but maybe enough to lower the insane fees?

For instance, why not charge for the services used and a low payment processing fee? If developers bring associated costs, they should pay for it. It just seems 30% is overshooting quite a bit. They want to treat developers like regular customers with regular margins, when they are more like partners bringing them nearly free revenue.

I guess I'm too ignorant to understand how building, maintaining and securing the App Store is 10x more expensive than doing the same for something like Mastercard.

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

#474

Post by beervirus »

drivebycomment wrote: post #30

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,…

If a company that helps monetize social media personalities goes out of business, meh.

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

#475

Post by avereveard »

avereveard wrote: post #460
throw-away_42 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Also they were trying to vendor lock third party hardware, acting in concert with OEM, it was far deeper and wider than Apple controlling access on their own hardware/software/user stack.

Apple damage control party has lost the plot if they're going haywire downvoting snippets of factual information

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

#476

Post by sfifs »

amelius wrote: post #181
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #107

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?

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 “gatek…

I anticipate that in the Epic lawsuit, the judge will definitely rule against the anti-steering policies of Apple though she'll probably not touch the app store, margins and payment processing pieces. There are many many Apps where buying content in iOS apps is pricier than buying on the web on the same publisher. This definitely raises consumer prices and causes consumer harm which is the key criteria of American anti-trust practice. This would be very very unlikely to be overturned on Appeal especially if the judge is careful to limit her ruling to just this and will result in numerous class action lawsuits.

The one I personally experience is sheet music where I'm very careful to never buy in-app which are always priced 20-25% higher.

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

#477

Post by martimarkov »

Karunamon wrote: post #435
valparaiso wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you comparing open and closed platforms when they aren’t comparable? Try now with Microsoft Xbox and iOs and your logic fails.

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.

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

#478

Post by h0l0cube »

relaxing wrote: post #398
_jal wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Didn't customers pay a premium for Apple hardware because of the unified ecosystem and superior security to begin with Not defending Apple, but offering forever-services for one-time fees is a great way to go out of business. I would not expect the App Store to be subsidized by hardware sales. Also, assuming you accept the premise in the first place, it makes sense to charge the developer, who is the one generating…

All of those are recurring fees.

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. The developer program has a yearly fee. Phones, even in the rare case that they are used for their full lifespan, still need to be replaced as they slowly die/become obselete - in practice every 2-5 years.

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

#480

Post by Dylan16807 »

tpmoney wrote: post #452
manigandham wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple limits everyone by not offering the choice in how their purchased hardware installs and runs their chosen software. We really must steer away from this dystopian view of "choice" amongst trillion-dollar megacorps that control half of the ecosystem. Yes, there should be different rules when they get that big, like serving the user first.

You literally have that choice right now. Today. You can buy ANY smart phone that isn't an Apple phone and you can choose how it installs and runs your chosen software. And for people who don't want the necessary tradeoffs that come with that freedom, they can choose to buy an Apple phone where such a thing isn't possible. Everyone gets what they want.

Everyone gets what they want if you completely ignore the issue of compatibility between different phones and stores.
Post reply on HN