Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse unless they give 30% of creator earning • Hacker News Board

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

#551

Post by manigandham » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 12:32 PM UTC

martimarkov wrote: post #541

p1necone wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I for one like the single store because it creates consistency. For developers, for privacy info, for subscriptions. So... don't use other app stores? Nobody is forcing you to. > If sideloading is allowed when then malware is also close to get on the phone. Not my phone probably but the average joe, my family members, students, etc. Average Joe's aren't even going to know that sideloading apps is an option, let alo…

Well that’s not true. Let’s just look at game stores. It’s super fragmented because companies want to control everything. They optimise for profit not end-user experience. On the other hand within the iOS ecosystem the store optimises for the end-user (more or less). So enabling different stores will create a more fractured ecosystem. Something that hinders my experience. Why would I support this? I’d only support it…

> "It’s super fragmented"

So what? There's multiple options. That's called choice and competition, which is helping drive new features and better pricing.

> "With that said I don’t see how any of those can be enforced."

Draconic measures like that are being enforced, which why other app stores are wanted in the first place.

Your entire argument seems to be that other stores are bad because of "fracturing" the market, yet desktop/macos users manage just fine, even with an app store on that platform. You're imagining a challenge that doesn't exist.

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

#552

Post by Hamuko » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 12:47 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #448

twostorytower wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, I stand corrected. I would swear that they previously allowed you to subscribe with an in-app purchase. Disney+ does still offer an Apple in-app subscription.

It hasn't been possible for about 2.5 years now.

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

#553

Post by TradingPlaces » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 1:05 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #64

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,…

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?

Products and services in the real world have marginal costs.

Digital products and services have near-zero marginal cost, so they pay.

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

#554

Post by whywhywhywhy » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

Jcowell wrote: post #498

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 need…

Is there anywhere I can try out this application?

Nothing I can show of it yet, but I encourage you to look into the WebUSB and WebBT APIs with an open mind.

I know a lot of HN users don't like them because they see it as a gateway to fingerprinting, not sure how much truth there is to that but for me I see there is a huge benefit to devices being able to communicate with our computers over open and understandable protocols.

Currently today, say you buy an IOT device you have to download a smartphone app. On a long enough timeline that smartphone app will stop being updated and then eventually it will stop working after an OS update, especially if its iOS and then at that point the device basically becomes landfill fodder.

If it were WebUSB or WebBT you just need to ship a web page, there is a greater chance that web page will still work down the line with newer browsers, if it doesn't rely on a server you could even archive that web page and at least it's easier to reverse engineer. Not to mention the web app will work on Linux too, no need to ship platform specific executables.

For me WebUSB and WebBT are great moves towards more sustainable and maintainable hardware.

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

#555

Post by whywhywhywhy » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

fomine3 wrote: post #447

themacguffinman wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some other examples too: - Automatically erasing all script-writeable storage after 7 days, crippling local PWAs and preventing them from competing with native apps - dragging their feet on Service Worker support for ages, another PWA issue - blocking the standardization of numerous web hardware APIs: - Web Bluetooth - Web MIDI API - Magnetometer API - Web NFC API - Device Memory API - Network Information API…

Restricting local storage features for "Privacy" looks like sly strategy by Apple. Some new APIs proposed by Google is bad, so declining by Apple is fair. Mozilla also decline some APIs.

>Some new APIs proposed by Google is bad

What's the greater evil? Some APIs that have to be approved by the user that give greater access to hardware.

Or developers having to write platform specific native apps if they want to reach the gigantic iOS audience, oh and because it's then through the App Store, then pay Apple for the privilege and pay App Store tax on any income from the app.

I know some would argue both are bad, but I know which world I'd rather live in.

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

#556

Post by manigandham » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

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…

> "will always be vetted"

It isn't. Malware is already an option. And websites are available on the phone, along with text and calls and many other channels that are constantly being used for scams and attacks. iOS isn't magically invulnerable and security would be handled the same way as MacOS (which also has an app store). This really isn't that big of a deal as you make it seem.

As for the rest, the other comments already describe the issues with the size of the company and importance of mobile devices leading to the current challenges. Reality, and how people and companies operate, just isn't that black and white.

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

#557

Post by eitland » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #192

fbelzile wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 so…

> Fees aren’t about costs, they are about value.

Correct.

The problem is the value is artifically high because it is basically extortion.

It is basically a protection racket: "you pay us and nothing bad happens to your app that you spent x years and y thousand dollars creating".

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

#558

Post by fbelzile » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #192

fbelzile wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 so…

I'm all about pricing for value without regulation. But did the App Store lose half of it's value to developers when Apple decided to slash fees from 30% to 15% (for smaller companies)? I don't think so. Did a competitor to the App Store appear to try and compete for lower fees? No.

This is just the behaviour of a company that can change prices on a whim because they don't need to compete with other app stores after having established a large share in the market and controlling 100% of all third party app distribution.

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

#559

Post by dizzant » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #536

otterley wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, we can argue ad infinitum as to what an acceptable commission should be. There’s no “correct” value. No matter what it is, someone will always complain that it’s too high. (Case in point: brick-and-mortar merchants who complain about 3-5% merchant fees for accepting credit cards.) But the fact that it’s been this way for over 10 years and the app ecosystem has been very healthy is a pretty good existenc…

Is the app ecosystem very healthy or could it be healthier? Why does the rate from 10 years ago make sense today? In a free market, the rates would be set by market forces and we generally think those are right. But Apple set 30% and has never even reviewed it as far as we know. I won't pretend there is a sure fire way of defining exactly the correct rate. There isn't. But that doesn't mean letting Apple set it is co…

Apple isn't alone is setting this price -- at the very least, Apple competes with Android for roughly half the smartphone market share. Making your app available in both ecosystems is not a requirement to run a successful business. As an example, consider the myriad apps that are available exclusively on iPhone, with no Android support.

The 30% in-app purchase tax can't be compared to a utility price because it isn't mandatory. As a business, if you don't want to pay it, you are free to target a different platform with a similar user base.

If high-quality apps stopped supporting iOS because of the high IaP fees, eventually Apple will be incentivized to reduce those fees. If apps elect to stay, the platform is clearly worth the cost.

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

#560

Post by dizzant » Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #152

otterley wrote: post #139

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 goin…

> 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 com…

Why does this rise to an issue of regulation for you? All these problems with the Apple ecosystem are optional: Android exists, and is a viable alternative with none of the mentioned downsides.

The fact that 50% of Americans freely choose to entrench themselves in an ecosystem with draconian rules and high fees does not imply that creating or operating such as system should be illegal. Apple would argue that the fees are necessary to fund creation of the system in the first place.