5 ms·

Apple rejects Facebook app that tells users Apple takes 30% cut

13 points by neya 6y ago

onion2k 6y ago
Apple should be allowed to do what they want regarding charging for use of the app store, but they shouldn't be allowed to keep their policies secret. Censoring apps that inform users where the user's money is going when they spend it in an app is unconscionable.
- sirmoveon 6y ago
  No oversight for Apple, really? Don't let the "Lets hate on Facebook" blind you from the general interest. Tug of war between titans is the only chance we have to keep them all accountable and further transparent policy making.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  Apple not allowing Facebook to use Apple platform to spread disparaging remarks. They’re not even going draconian on it and banning Facebook if they make disparaging remarks on other platforms. This is max libertarianism. Apple built the highway and is in charge of setting the rules. You want to change the rules, change them for all competitors.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    Telling someone the truth cannot be a disparaging remark.
    - vlovich123 6y ago
      First, I'm pretty sure you're confusing defamation with disparagement. Defamation requires the claim to be untruthful. Disparaging remarks can definitely be true - they just require the remarks to paint you in a negative light. All defamation is disparaging. Not all disparagement is defamation. Secondly, it seems like you're picking sides rather than objectively evaluating the merits of the argument. Sure, Facebook saying Apple gets 30% of the cut is technically a true fact. The truth is ultimately more than a collection of facts that are true. You can manipulate perception by how you present the set of facts, which you emphasize & which you omit. It's totally conceivable to imagine there Apple may feel the true fact Facebook is emphasizing isn't a fair representation of the truth. Even if it were, Apple would surely feel they don't want individual apps putting up advertising that disparages the very platform they are being served by. If they allowed it for Facebook it would open up the flood gates for publicity stunts/coordinated attacks from smaller companies which would force shifts in policy they view as important for the long-term health of the ecosystem (& their revenue & margins too probably). Finally, Google has the same policies & the notice appears to be missing from the Android app too [1]. This is trying to hold Apple to task over a purity standard that no one follows. This all feels like a media and legal blitz by very large companies trying to leverage dissatisfaction with the tech companies in Congress to wrest significant concessions from Apple. I'm genuinely curious about the media blitz focusing on Apple when Android has all the same policies. Is Apple viewed as the first important domino to then take on Google with? Does Apple just hold the lion's share of profitable users? Is Apple just making stories "pop" more with readers? Disclaimer: I work at Facebook & have worked at Google & Apple in the past. I don't have a dog in this fight & all opinions are my own. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-apple-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-says-apple-rejected-its-attempt-to-tell-users-about-app-store-fees-idUSKBN25O042 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-apple-exclusive/... > The social media giant also planned to tell users on Alphabet Inc’s Google Play store it would not collect a fee for ticket sales, but that message was not displayed either, Reuters found.
- fatnoah 6y ago
  >Apple should be allowed to do what they want regarding charging for use of the app store, but they shouldn't be allowed to keep their policies secret. Totally agree. There's barely anything MORE RELEVANT than the fact that 30% of proceeds aren't going to the businesses. Apple claims that their processes lead to better results for businesses and customers, but they should just admit the main benefit is for Apple itself and that any rules are intentionally vague so that Apple can maximize that benefit. The opacity of their actual requirements and process are a hindrance to everyone. EDIT: Moreover, how can Apple claim that Facebook saying it takes 0% be relevant while stating that Apple takes 30% is irrelevant?
sdfhbdf 6y ago
Doesnt Google do the same?

13 points by neya 6y ago

Apple should be allowed to do what they want regarding charging for use of the app store, but they shouldn't be allowed to keep their policies secret. Censoring apps that inform users where the user's money is going when they spend it in an app is unconscionable.

sirmoveon 6y ago
No oversight for Apple, really? Don't let the "Lets hate on Facebook" blind you from the general interest. Tug of war between titans is the only chance we have to keep them all accountable and further transparent policy making.
vlovich123 6y ago
Apple not allowing Facebook to use Apple platform to spread disparaging remarks. They’re not even going draconian on it and banning Facebook if they make disparaging remarks on other platforms. This is max libertarianism. Apple built the highway and is in charge of setting the rules. You want to change the rules, change them for all competitors.
- onion2k 6y ago
  Telling someone the truth cannot be a disparaging remark.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    First, I'm pretty sure you're confusing defamation with disparagement. Defamation requires the claim to be untruthful. Disparaging remarks can definitely be true - they just require the remarks to paint you in a negative light. All defamation is disparaging. Not all disparagement is defamation. Secondly, it seems like you're picking sides rather than objectively evaluating the merits of the argument. Sure, Facebook saying Apple gets 30% of the cut is technically a true fact. The truth is ultimately more than a collection of facts that are true. You can manipulate perception by how you present the set of facts, which you emphasize & which you omit. It's totally conceivable to imagine there Apple may feel the true fact Facebook is emphasizing isn't a fair representation of the truth. Even if it were, Apple would surely feel they don't want individual apps putting up advertising that disparages the very platform they are being served by. If they allowed it for Facebook it would open up the flood gates for publicity stunts/coordinated attacks from smaller companies which would force shifts in policy they view as important for the long-term health of the ecosystem (& their revenue & margins too probably). Finally, Google has the same policies & the notice appears to be missing from the Android app too [1]. This is trying to hold Apple to task over a purity standard that no one follows. This all feels like a media and legal blitz by very large companies trying to leverage dissatisfaction with the tech companies in Congress to wrest significant concessions from Apple. I'm genuinely curious about the media blitz focusing on Apple when Android has all the same policies. Is Apple viewed as the first important domino to then take on Google with? Does Apple just hold the lion's share of profitable users? Is Apple just making stories "pop" more with readers? Disclaimer: I work at Facebook & have worked at Google & Apple in the past. I don't have a dog in this fight & all opinions are my own. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-apple-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-says-apple-rejected-its-attempt-to-tell-users-about-app-store-fees-idUSKBN25O042 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-apple-exclusive/... > The social media giant also planned to tell users on Alphabet Inc’s Google Play store it would not collect a fee for ticket sales, but that message was not displayed either, Reuters found.
fatnoah 6y ago
>Apple should be allowed to do what they want regarding charging for use of the app store, but they shouldn't be allowed to keep their policies secret. Totally agree. There's barely anything MORE RELEVANT than the fact that 30% of proceeds aren't going to the businesses. Apple claims that their processes lead to better results for businesses and customers, but they should just admit the main benefit is for Apple itself and that any rules are intentionally vague so that Apple can maximize that benefit. The opacity of their actual requirements and process are a hindrance to everyone. EDIT: Moreover, how can Apple claim that Facebook saying it takes 0% be relevant while stating that Apple takes 30% is irrelevant?

sdfhbdf 6y ago

Doesnt Google do the same?