28 ms·

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

403 points by amrrs 5y ago

JoshTko 5y ago
Title should be Fanhouse didn't understand app store policy and built an unsustainable business model.
- hu3 5y ago
  The same App Store Policy that magically doesn't apply to a similar service, Patreon?
  - alpacaillama 5y ago
    Going to jump in and reply. Patreon explicitly doesn’t do Pay to views, doesn’t have interaction gated behind paywalls, and is meant as just a straight transfer of $. Fanhouse does a lot of these things which counts as digital transactions. This differentiation makes sense to me. Also interestingly most people I have seen use fanhouse use it for NFSW stuff but Stripe seems to be fine with it? Specifically the pay to view feature which is people basically selling nudes.
    - hu3 5y ago
      Interesting. Doesn't Apple disallow porn? Also Patreon does gate content behind payment, with different tiers even. And I've seen Patreons sell one-time services/products for a fee, like this random Patreon: https://i.imgur.com/qKpOwpq.png https://i.imgur.com/qKpOwpq.png All these subtle differentiations to justify one service paying 30% while Patreon doesn't seem arbitrary to say the least. It makes no sense.
      - alpacaillama 5y ago
        I agree with your point about the differentiation being vague and the fact that apple should be more clear. Also apple does disallow porn. And fanhouse also says no porn but every fanhouse creator’s marketing is around suggestive pics. They get around it by calling it “lewd” instead of nude and the app literally has a pay to view picture functionality which some creators use for NSFW stuff. I wonder when Stripe will catch on to this. Basically marketing != what’s happening.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      Fanhouse is explicitly supposed to be PG-13 and a family-friendly equivalent to other similar platforms. It wouldn't have even been listed on the App Store if it wasn't.
      - alpacaillama 5y ago
        I can find you 15 fanhouse creator tweets that are suggestive in nature. They get around the PG-13 requirement by calling it “lewd”. Do you want 13 year olds to buy lewds? Lol def not PG-13 whatever they claim. And from personal experience a creator who has offered to let me buy her nudes on fanhouse’s pay to view. I too can claim something is SFW.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - alpacaillama 5y ago
        Here’s one such tweet fyi: https://twitter.com/rotkill/status/1367687681837301761?s=21 https://twitter.com/rotkill/status/1367687681837301761?s=21 Just go on twitter and search for “fanhouse lewd” make sure twitter is not auto correcting fanhouse to funhouse. Lol they are clearly violating Stripe’s agreement and Apple’s no porn rule. All the SFW is marketing to differ from Onlyfans and has worked. :)
syntaxing 5y ago
Seriously curious, what percentage is “fair”? Or is the issue you can’t side load this app without going through the App Store?
- salamandersauce 5y ago
  If Apple wants to play gatekeeper, no percentage IMO unless they're using Apple's payment network which should be competitive with others like stripe at 3% or so. In this case they actually are willing to pay Apple, just 30% of their revenue which is 10% of the transaction price but Apple wants 30% of the transaction price.
  - valparaiso 5y ago
    They planned their business after reading App Store rules and now want to bypass it. That’s not how the business work. They will fail in court very badly because they accepted the rules and know all consequences.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  an 10% profit margin is considered average
- WWLink 5y ago
  I think none. Apple is clearly nickel and diming their own customers at this point. Now you're not only paying Apple for your iPhone, and Apple services, but you're also stuck paying them extra every time you buy a service from your iPhone. It's stupid and greedy. Like where do we draw the line?
  - distribot 5y ago
    I think the current system is too much in Apple's favor, but I imagine they do have to spend a decent chunk of change curating the app store, validating submissions, hosting the apps for download, and maintaining the security infrastructure for developers to sign their apps and users to have confidence in them. This is all value added for developers.
thoughtstheseus 5y ago
Possible misleading title. Apple wants 30% of earnings, not “creator” earnings.
- WWLink 5y ago
  Possibly misleading comment. Did you read the tweet thread? Apple is demanding 30% of all transactions sourced from an Apple device.
  - CubsFan1060 5y ago
    From the app. As someone else noticed, not having an app doesn't seem to have slowed down OnlyFans
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      I feel like Onlyfans being a porn platform is the reason behind its success. Porn and sex are very strong motivators if dare not I say innovators for Platforms and technologies. I’m still hanging on the belief that VR will be catapulted by Porn.
- vanous 5y ago
  > Possible misleading title. Apple wants 30% of earnings, not “creator” earnings. "In writing and over the phone, we explained to Apple that we could pay them 30% of our revenues (from our 10% take rate). It'll be harder to cover costs and build features as a startup, but at least it'd be coming from us. Apple insisted on taking 30% of creators' total earnings."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  This is being pedantic to the point of being wrong. Because of the nature of the app, the earnings in-app, which Apple wants, are creator earnings. Your suggested title would be less specific to the point of being flat out wrong if Fanhouse makes earnings elsewhere... which they do.
mdoms 5y ago
This will keep happening as long as people keep agreeing to Apple's terms and building on their platform. I wouldn't touch Apple's platform with a 10 foot pole. Nothing here is new. It's getting harder to sympathise with developers who keep doing it.
- CubsFan1060 5y ago
  I'll give you the counterpoint. I'm very happy to spend money on apps and services that I like. However, I'm only going to do it through Apple's platform, for a variety of reasons. If you don't want to build on Apple's platform, that's completely fine. I won't be a customer. And maybe that will change the system, I really don't know.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    The issue is that this customer you're describing doesn't exist. It does provide a marginally higher amount of friction to use a non-native payment method, but there aren't any users out there cancelling their Netflix subscription because now Netflix gets 100% of the proceeds instead of 70%. At that point, you're inadvertently sabotaging the very company that you're trying to support, because your hardware manufacturer decided that they need to tax your software, too.
    - slver 5y ago
      How can you honestly tell a person who just shared their opinion "you don't exist"? I also would never enter my credit card in an app, UNLESS it's a huge, well-trusted brand (which this influencer app isn't). Many people wouldn't bother. The whole point of Apple handling this is that you trust Apple to have more clue than your average startup full of monkeys.
      - Jcowell 5y ago
        This is a big thing for me. I really do not want to give any vendor raw Payment information if I can help. Would much rather do so though a service like Apple Pay/Google Pay. And then only have to worry about that one vendor when they get a data breach then a dozen vendors and deal with a dozen data breaches.
hellisothers 5y ago
Seems pretty disingenuous given they had to have known this would happen (note that OnlyFans has no app)
- falcolas 5y ago
  Makes for a great soundbite though. "We had no idea going in that stepping in front of this bus would hurt us."
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    "Amazon and Patreon doesn't get hit with a 30% tax. Why do we?" would be less disingenuous.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      Amazon (Kindle) and Patreon don't offer purchasing in their apps, exactly so they aren't charged 30%.
- beckler 5y ago
  Then why do Venmo and CashApp get a pass? Is Fanhouse trying to leverage Apple’s Payment APIs without paying or something?
  - hellisothers 5y ago
    Those apps are not distributing content, I haven’t installed Fanhouse but from looking at their website it seems that you can consume the content you’re paying for through it.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      So Netflix?
      - hellisothers 5y ago
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
That's a nice business you got there. Shame if anything were to happen to it.
bgandrew 5y ago
Apple is just milking people at this point. Their devices are subpar for the cost and customer treatment is sometimes even worse.
- valparaiso 5y ago
  So don’t use it. Oh, most of Google engineers over the world and Silicon Valley are using iPhones. They even are given for free on par with Pixels when you are being hired. Are they that dumb and don’t understand that Apple is milking them?
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
Serious question, why does everything require an app? Why can't the same thing be accomplished via the mobile web? I get so tired of being prompted to install apps when you could just *show me the damned web page*. Anything that requires speed can be done via webassembly, and sure, anything like games can ship a native app.
- JamesSwift 5y ago
  Usually for proper push messaging and background processing
  - jeroenhd 5y ago
    Those have been part of the web standards for ages (serviceworkers, web notifications).
    - azinman2 5y ago
      Web notifications don’t work on iOS and I’m assuming Android as well? Serviceworkers aren’t woken up in response to a background push if your phone is lock and not on that webpage.
      - drfuzzyness 5y ago
        From a user standpoint, Web Notifications work quite well on Android. When using Chrome for Android (Chromium), each site is assigned a separate Notification Channel so users can change notification priority or block notifications. Firefox for Android (Gecko) works similarly but without Notification Channels.
      - jeroenhd 5y ago
        Web notifications work fine on Android. Has Apple still not fixed notifications then? I was under the impression that they claimed to have massively improve Safari during last year's conference?
drivebycomment 5y ago
Per https://fanhouse.app/ 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, where they take some cut for themselves, while allowing other people to sell digital contents on their platform. Other than the argument that this could be an anti-trust situation (i.e. in that case, the argument would be that Apple is abusing their market position), what differentiates these two cases ?
- cromwellian 5y ago
  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?
  - qeternity 5y ago
    They draw a line between digital and physical purchases.
    - smnrchrds 5y ago
      They don't force Netflix to pay them 30% either. The reality is they take 30% where they can overpower the other party. Where they are overpowered, they acquiesce.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        They also drew a line between in app and non in app transactions.
        smnrchrds 5y ago
        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 https://marco.org/2020/09/11/app-review-changes
capybara_2020 5y ago
Just curious, if Apple is so bad, why do people build apps for it? Browsers are very robust now a days. I have never built a iPhone or Android app, never needed to. Browsers now a days I imagine can get you atleast 90% of the way. Why go to Apple if you can build a webapp. And it is cross platform so you do not have to maintain a separate Android app. What am I missing?
- foepys 5y ago
  Some simply cannot avoid it because Apple does not implement all necessary functionality for all kinds of apps in Safari and does not allow other browser engines that do on iOS.
- nikanj 5y ago
  A native app has access to way more marketable data than a browser page. Why do you think all the big sites keep on pushing you to install their app?
- josephorjoe 5y ago
  The web never implemented easy micropayments, and iPhone/Android did.
  - jonny_eh 5y ago
    Actually, Apple Pay works great on the web, but doesn't charge a 30% fee.
    - taylodl 5y ago
      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 you can tell Walmart where to shove it and only sell your product at Costco. It's how retail works.
carabiner 5y ago
> We have creators who are unemployed from the pandemic. We have creators who need to pay rent, to pay tuition, to pay medical expenses, and they need their income to survive. Apple's 30% directly threatens their livelihoods. Does anyone find this reasoning disingenuous? "Will you think of the [children or other unprivileged group]?" Is Apple morally obligated to give money to people with harder lives? It weakens her whole argument. Jasmine knows this. She used to be on OnlyFans which has no app, and is an Ivy League (UPenn) grad. She's trying to keep her cash while making an emotional appeal.
- brailsafe 5y ago
  Yes, I find it disingenuous. It's bullshit and manipulative. I don't feel like Fanhouse is the second coming of Jesus.
xmly 5y ago
So the subscription apple tax work-around does not work anymore if you are making too much money?
- salamandersauce 5y ago
  More like not enough money. Netflix and Spotify leaving the App Store would be a big deal and piss off a lot of consumers. Months old startup a handful have heard of? Perfect to extort in Apple's eyes.
  - alpacaillama 5y ago
    Netflix and Spotify don’t offer in-app purchases and come under the reader rule within the appstore guidelines. At least know about things before you talk about them dude.
patagonia 5y ago
How is Apple different than Amazon? Humans are bad at things we can’t touch. Imagine all physical goods shops had to be listed through a “Microsoft shop store” if you’re using the Edge browser. You can’t. Because that’d be dumb. But hey Apple made the phone and we sign away our soul and first born when it comes to software. So it follows Apple can keep all, all, every, globally, software vendor or creator or hobbyist from putting an app on “their” phone unless it goes through Apple.
slver 5y ago
The only thing I don't understand is why these people push apps on the AppStore and then whine about the rules they've agreed to. Apple's 30% is infamous. It's not something obscure about iTunes use in nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
- ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  Because they have a monopoly over 50% of the population, and many businesses quite literally have to participate or they would cease to exist. Do you think it'd be legal for Microsoft to charge a 30% fee on every transaction you make on Windows?
  - taylodl 5y ago
    They do not have a monopoly. 50% or more of the population chose to be in Apple's walled garden. They knew the rules, they knew what they were buying. Some people don't want to be in Apple's walled garden, so they buy Android. Businesses tend to prefer Apple's ecosystem because sales data has shown that Apple's customers tend to pay more for applications and services - so they're coveted customers.
    - dvtkrlbs 5y ago
      You are delusional
      - dang 5y ago
        Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments to HN, and please don't do name-calling or personal attacks. Those things are not what this site is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - slver 5y ago
    Wait so "because [Apple] have a monopoly" (which isn't correct, but let's put that aside) they can push an app and then act surprised about Apple enforcing the ToS they agreed to? Yeah that's not good enough.
ThePowerOfFuet 5y ago
Based on this, I downloaded the Fanhouse app, but before signing up I figured I'd read the privacy policy [0]. >Information We Get When You Use the Service • Cookies, Log Data and other tracking technologies: When you use our Service, we and our business partners may collect certain information about your computer or device through technology such as cookies, web beacons, log files, or other tracking/recording tools. The information we collect through the use of tracking technologies includes, but is not limited to, IP address, browser information, referring/exit pages and URLs, click stream data and information about how you interact with links on the website, mobile app, or Service, domain names, landing pages, page views, cookie data that allows us to uniquely identify your browser and track your behavior on our site, mobile device type, mobile device IDs or other persistent identifiers, and location data collected from your mobile device. Some or all of this data may be combined with other information described above. When you access our Service by or through a mobile device, we may receive or collect and store a unique identification numbers associated with your device or our mobile application (including, for example, a UDID, Unique ID for Advertisers (“IDFA”), Google Ad ID, or Windows Advertising ID or other identifier), mobile carrier, device type, model and manufacturer, mobile device operating system brand and model, phone number, and, depending on your mobile device settings, your geographical location data, including GPS coordinates (e.g. latitude and/or longitude), WiFi location or similar information regarding the location of your mobile device. You have the option to either accept or refuse these cookies, and know when a cookie is being sent to your computer. If you choose to refuse our cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. • Analytics Data: We may also collect analytics data, or use third-party analytics tools, to help us measure traffic and usage trends for the Service. These tools collect information sent by your browser or mobile device, including the pages you visit, your use of third party applications, and other information that assists us in analyzing and improving the Service. That'll be a hard no from me. App deleted. (Also absolutely illegal in the EU, and not in line with their own App Store listing's privacy disclosure.) [0] https://fanhouse.app/docs/privacy https://fanhouse.app/docs/privacy
amrrs 5y ago
One of the replies from the founder: >We removed the ability to subscribe in app, but Apple still required us to do their 30% or would remove our app. However, if you do have the current app, it's not yet subject to Apple's 30% and all creators still will receive 90% of their earnings. Web will also remain functional https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/1402716822856687616?s=19 https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/14027168228566876...
- Jcowell 5y ago
  This is what I largely have a problem with (I personally don’t care about the 30% either way) why can Patreon, a similar service, do this but This app can’t?
  - danso 5y ago
    Maybe it's been grandfathered in? But isn't it already the status quo for Apple to selectively give favorable treatment to bigger operators? Prime Video's app previously disabled in-app buying, but at some point in the past year they made a deal with Apple: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-tv-prime-30-percent-developers https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-... > Apple and Amazon very, very quietly unveiled a monumental app deal this week, without fanfare or, sadly, much in the way of transparency. Out of nowhere, buttons to buy or rent movies appeared in the Amazon Prime Video app. It’s difficult to express how strange this is: for over a decade, Apple has stuck to the rule that all digital goods sold in iOS apps must use Apple’s payment methods, including Apple’s 30 percent cut.
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      Isn’t that program enrollable though? There’s a thing to beta roll out a feature to select apps and then have it as an API or program.
    - arvinsim 5y ago
      Why is everyone consenting with this favoritism?
somethingAlex 5y ago
Does anyone know to what extent Apple differentiates between in-app purchases and subscriptions? I've heard Netflix and Spotify do not give Apple 30% because, well, that'd be kind of ridiculous for these companies to give 30% of their revenue to Apple. But what about mid-sized companies? I pay a yearly subscription fee to Headspace. If Apple is actually taking 30% of their revenue because people access it via an iPhone? That... just doesn't seem sustainable.
- Yaina 5y ago
  You can't subscribe to Netflix and Spotify on the App Store anymore. It was possible for a while, where both just handed the costs down to customers. E.g. when Spotify costs 10$ on their site, it used to cost 13$ when purchased through Apple. I know Spotify stopped supporting in-app purchases when Apple Music came out, because even though both services are priced similarly, from within the Apple ecosystem it seemed that Spotify costs 30% more. And of course because of the anti-steering provisions for Apps, Spotify couldn't even tell iOS users that Spotify is cheaper when you visit their site.
- querulous 5y ago
  if you pay that subscription fee via the app store then apple takes a 30% (or possibly 15%, in a few scenarios) cut
andjd 5y ago
Down in the thread, they compare their platform to Patreon, which has an app. Exclusive content is a substantial part of Patreon. I'd like a straight-forward explanation of why Patreon is allowed to avoid in-app payments. It seems like a straight-forward violation of apple's rules. Apple having its rules is one thing, but applying them unevenly seems like a problem too, since it protects a whole host of 'grandfathered' businesses from competition.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  If you are big enough the chance of getting hit by this diminishes and if you do get hit you can make a deal (like Amazon does) to pay less. Rules are for plebs and apps Apple think it might copy some day.
Yaina 5y ago
People in the comments are right so far that this could be just a website, but I think we can turn that around and say that Apple is not providing any services that the developers of Fanhouse really need or want. They just want to be on the store, and all the services and APIs Apple provides aren't really features as long as developers are forced to use them.
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
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?
- amelius 5y ago
  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/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en 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 “gatekeeper”.
  - pier25 5y ago
    Regarding your two points, in 2020 Apple claimed there were about 23M developers [1] and they charge $99 every year. Even if only 50% of those 23M devs are actually paying the $99 fee that is still over $1B a year. [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-wwdc-2020-kicks-off-in-june-with-an-all-new-online-format/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-wwdc-2020-kick...
  - nipponese 5y ago
    The argument is that it's industry standard. Microsoft and Sony also take 30% https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playstation-xbox-epic-games-apple/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playst...
    - manigandham 5y ago
      There are alternate ways to get software on those platforms. There isn’t on Apple mobile devices.
Firebrand 5y ago
How timely for Instagram’s CEO to say the quiet part out loud and announce that they’ll be helping content creators to get around Apple’s 30% cut today: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/09/instagram-ceo-facebook-will-help-users-get-around-apple-cut-of-transactions.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/09/instagram-ceo-facebook-will-... I think Zuckerberg was right when he said Apple’s practices have ultimately benefited Facebook in eliminating any competition.
otterley 5y ago
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 going to end up giving them 63% of their IaP revenue (90% of 70%) instead of 90%. This is a business problem disguised as a justice issue.
- echelon 5y ago
  > 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 computing. What the question really should be is, "why should Apple get to enjoy all commerce and freedoms linked to computing?" Through marketing and developing a good product, they've brought themselves into a market leader position. The choice to lock down their device may have made sense at 5%, but now it suffocates our entire industry under their gargantuan weight. Apple isn't a device maker anymore. They're the fabric of computing itself. They have all the customers, they control all the software, and they make all the choices. You don't get ingress without going through them. They've been transformed into an analog of a common carrier, and the law now needs to treat them as such. The only path forward is to force Apple to allow web-based downloads of apps, no longer allow them to force Apple payment rails, and to enable non-Safari based browsers to be installed. Simple fix that will restore balance and health to the industry. After this change happens, Apple will remain a 2 Trillion dollar company. This has negligible impact on their revenue - all it does is force them to work harder and gives the rest of us much-needed breathing room. (Nevermind the right to repair and compute arguments.)
  - arvinsim 5y ago
    Some people like the status quo and would defend it to the death because they make money off it.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
It's time to stop asking "Why does Apple think they deserve 30% of App Store revenue" and start asking "Why has Apple not demanded 30% of web app revenue yet?". The justification of "We put all the hard work into building the hardware, the OS and the stack so deserve a cut" still stands if a website is opened using the Safari engine. If it doesn't stand then neither does the App Store cut.
- Black101 5y ago
  > "Why has Apple not demanded 30% of web app revenue yet?" They would if they knew how. Which is probably why they block features on the web so that they can't compete with native apps.
  - stemlord 5y ago
    You're talking about webm right?
    - J5892 5y ago
      The standard modern web in general. Mobile Safari is the Internet Explorer of the modern web.
    - themacguffinman 5y ago
      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 - Battery Status API - Ambient Light Sensor - HDCP Policy Check extension for EME - Proximity Sensor - WebHID - Serial API - Web USB - Geolocation Sensor (background geolocation) - User Idle Detection
      - fomine3 5y ago
        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.
mewse-hn 5y ago
I just checked and I'm surprised Patreon has an iOS app. I wonder how they're dodging this type of shakedown.
RandallBrown 5y ago
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 $1.50 if they haven't made $1 million so far this year or last year). I understand that Fanhouse wants to give $9 of those dollars to the creator. They can, but they still owe their fee to Apple. Unfortunately that ends up being more money than the whole transaction so the economics just don't work. What amount is fair for Apple to charge for payment processing and the infrastructure to actually make the purchases?
- barbazoo 5y ago
  > 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.
  - RandallBrown 5y ago
    What exemptions does Netflix have? They aren't using their own payment provider since you can't actually pay for anything from within the app.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      > What exemptions does Netflix have? Netflix is exempted from mandatory usage of Apple's payment platform. OP stated that Apple is threatening to pull the app if she does the same thing that Netflix gets away with: avoid using Apple's payment platform, and set up payments outside of the app. For a company that loves demanding its partners adopt Most-Favored Nation clauses, Apple sure does hate treating its app developers the same.
      - 5y ago
jfrunyon 5y ago
I don't understand. Has Apple changed their terms of services to disallow this? Is it not clearly disallowed by their terms of service? Or has it been disallowed for the whole 8 months of its existence, and this person is mad that they only got away with it for that long?
xbar 5y ago
How is Fanhouse content different than other in-app purchases?
grouphugs 5y ago
fuck apple
brailsafe 5y ago
Something seems a bit sus here. There's a whole lot of "I'm poor and on food stamps, relying on my brand new company to pay me as a creator". Are they even "creating" on the platform? Seems like they're some kind of middleman for every other service kind of like hootsuite or something. Have they cleared that 1 million 15% threshold already in 8 months?
etchalon 5y ago
"Company is shocked to discover that the agreement they signed to do a thing is being enforced."
adolph 5y ago
fanhouse is a SFW platform where creators can monetize their social media presence by posting about themselves and their lives 1. Why would creators using fanhouse get to bypass Apple’s tax? 2. Why is this being treated differently from Kindle, which allows creators to distribute content via an app offered in the App Store without paying 30% of ebook price?
- alpacaillama 5y ago
  2. Fanhouse not only has one off transactions but things like pay to view pictures of someone etc
skc 5y ago
It's a shame that these companies can't even vote with their feet because Apple users are too lucrative as a market. Hell of a position to find yourself in as a business.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Animats 5y ago
Jasmine from Fanhouse is likely to get a speaking slot at the upcoming Congressional hearings on Apple.
- valparaiso 5y ago
  It would be interesting to hear how she wants to make money on Apple platform by not following the rules and not paying fees for access to Apple user base. It seems zoomers live in alternative version of Universe where everyone is owing them something.
  - Animats 5y ago
    "Paying fees for access to Apple's user base" is called an "illegal tie-in sale" in antitrust law.[1] [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
  - VMtest 5y ago
    She, the fanhouse app owner, only takes 10% from the content creators
    - valparaiso 5y ago
      It doesn’t really matter. Apple takes 30% since rules are for all. You can do your business on Android in 3rd party store or without store and don’t pay any fees. But Android users are poor by statistics and no one is using sideloading or 3rd part stores in US. That’s why she hates Apple - they built successful and platform by investing billions and now someone wants to exploit it for free.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chad_strategic 5y ago
Hmm... This is interesting. Did the terms of the contract change? I'm not an app developer and I know that Apple takes a 30% cut.
d3ntb3ev1l 5y ago
Should stores not have to pay rent? I mean what gives with that!
valparaiso 5y ago
That’s just ridiculous. Person wants to make money on Apple install user base which they were growing for years by investing billions and doesn’t want to pay fee for possibility to make business on platform in which they didn’t invest a penny.
- qayxc 5y ago
  Am I understanding you correctly here: so a company that sells hardware, which they sell at a profit, has the right to exploit the works of others because it runs on their hardware? That's a very strange point of view. So you would be OK with Google taking money from every website they list, because according to your logic it's Google who invested billions to make your website searchable and thus deserves a cut from whatever you earn with it? Because that's kind of what's going on here. Developers pay to get their app into the store. This should cover the cost of maintaining the app store. If you charge for your app, there might be an argument to be had. But if you sell products and services using the app, there's no way Apple is involved with that other than that the app runs on their hardware, which doesn't cost them a single cent.
randyrand 5y ago
Apple has always taken 30% of creator earnings. Even small indy developers have paid this cut. Did she really expect otherwise?
numair 5y ago
There is a culture, that has remained in place since the time when Apple was about to go bankrupt, to try to keep every penny possible. This corporate culture literally saved the company from its death (remember the Bill Gates Borg appearance on the giant screen in ‘97?) but it’s becoming a bit much now. Apple should have been pulling every trick in the book to help this young female entrepreneur build a digital platform — she’s exactly the sort of person we need in a leadership role in that industry. Instead, they’re killing her business — what? This goes beyond “the rules” ... It’s time for their culture to evolve.
chunsj 5y ago
I think not using Apple platform is the way to go if you cannot agree their ToS.
perfectstorm 5y ago
I must be following 50+ iOS developers on Twitter and none of them have liked this tweet. It's surreal. I feel like people are afraid of Apple's retaliation if they like this tweet.
andrewmcwatters 5y ago
I think these content creators have it too good, they're only taxed about 30% by the government, and 30% by social media platforms, and only 30% by hardware platforms. That's a whole 10% they're left with! Those content creators should pledge 30% of their net earnings to worthwhile causes. It only makes sense. Besides, look at how much they're earning gross to begin with. A whole $0.99 per app, and $0.04 per click on advertisements! These people are rolling in it.
- ajfjrbfbf 5y ago
  They're actually left with 34% if you do the math correctly.
  - ampdepolymerase 5y ago
    Don't forget to account for floating point rounding errors.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Last time I have checked Apple's appstore rules, if you don't take payments within an app and you DON'T tell users of an app to pay outside of it, you are clea from their tax. So, for example, if you ask for their email and then email them to pay via their website, they won't bother you. Has this policy changed? Or does Fanhouse ask for payments from within an app?
arid_eden 5y ago
I find the creators livelihoods lines to be attention grabbing and muddying the waters about what this argument should be about. The Netflix exemption should be available to all apps - that point is what the Epic lawsuit should be about (they've confused the issue too by talking about having their own app store). Apple could then fight for developers to use Apple Pay on its merits in the marketplace. In the case of Fanhouse, the rules were well known (and disliked) when they started. They should have created their product as a web app - their particular use case is one where the technical limitations of a web app wouldn't have been much of an issue. If they felt so strongly that their product had to be in the Apple App store to succeed, they are justifying Apple's 30% cut.
swiley 5y ago
This wouldn't be a problem if Apple wasn't the only company allowed to sign iPhone apps.

403 points by amrrs 5y ago

JoshTko 5y ago

Title should be Fanhouse didn't understand app store policy and built an unsustainable business model.

hu3 5y ago
The same App Store Policy that magically doesn't apply to a similar service, Patreon?
- alpacaillama 5y ago
  Going to jump in and reply. Patreon explicitly doesn’t do Pay to views, doesn’t have interaction gated behind paywalls, and is meant as just a straight transfer of $. Fanhouse does a lot of these things which counts as digital transactions. This differentiation makes sense to me. Also interestingly most people I have seen use fanhouse use it for NFSW stuff but Stripe seems to be fine with it? Specifically the pay to view feature which is people basically selling nudes.
  - hu3 5y ago
    Interesting. Doesn't Apple disallow porn? Also Patreon does gate content behind payment, with different tiers even. And I've seen Patreons sell one-time services/products for a fee, like this random Patreon: https://i.imgur.com/qKpOwpq.png https://i.imgur.com/qKpOwpq.png All these subtle differentiations to justify one service paying 30% while Patreon doesn't seem arbitrary to say the least. It makes no sense.
    - alpacaillama 5y ago
      I agree with your point about the differentiation being vague and the fact that apple should be more clear. Also apple does disallow porn. And fanhouse also says no porn but every fanhouse creator’s marketing is around suggestive pics. They get around it by calling it “lewd” instead of nude and the app literally has a pay to view picture functionality which some creators use for NSFW stuff. I wonder when Stripe will catch on to this. Basically marketing != what’s happening.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Fanhouse is explicitly supposed to be PG-13 and a family-friendly equivalent to other similar platforms. It wouldn't have even been listed on the App Store if it wasn't.
    - alpacaillama 5y ago
      I can find you 15 fanhouse creator tweets that are suggestive in nature. They get around the PG-13 requirement by calling it “lewd”. Do you want 13 year olds to buy lewds? Lol def not PG-13 whatever they claim. And from personal experience a creator who has offered to let me buy her nudes on fanhouse’s pay to view. I too can claim something is SFW.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - alpacaillama 5y ago
      Here’s one such tweet fyi: https://twitter.com/rotkill/status/1367687681837301761?s=21 https://twitter.com/rotkill/status/1367687681837301761?s=21 Just go on twitter and search for “fanhouse lewd” make sure twitter is not auto correcting fanhouse to funhouse. Lol they are clearly violating Stripe’s agreement and Apple’s no porn rule. All the SFW is marketing to differ from Onlyfans and has worked. :)

syntaxing 5y ago

Seriously curious, what percentage is “fair”? Or is the issue you can’t side load this app without going through the App Store?

salamandersauce 5y ago
If Apple wants to play gatekeeper, no percentage IMO unless they're using Apple's payment network which should be competitive with others like stripe at 3% or so. In this case they actually are willing to pay Apple, just 30% of their revenue which is 10% of the transaction price but Apple wants 30% of the transaction price.
- valparaiso 5y ago
  They planned their business after reading App Store rules and now want to bypass it. That’s not how the business work. They will fail in court very badly because they accepted the rules and know all consequences.
cblconfederate 5y ago
an 10% profit margin is considered average
WWLink 5y ago
I think none. Apple is clearly nickel and diming their own customers at this point. Now you're not only paying Apple for your iPhone, and Apple services, but you're also stuck paying them extra every time you buy a service from your iPhone. It's stupid and greedy. Like where do we draw the line?
- distribot 5y ago
  I think the current system is too much in Apple's favor, but I imagine they do have to spend a decent chunk of change curating the app store, validating submissions, hosting the apps for download, and maintaining the security infrastructure for developers to sign their apps and users to have confidence in them. This is all value added for developers.

thoughtstheseus 5y ago

Possible misleading title. Apple wants 30% of earnings, not “creator” earnings.

WWLink 5y ago
Possibly misleading comment. Did you read the tweet thread? Apple is demanding 30% of all transactions sourced from an Apple device.
- CubsFan1060 5y ago
  From the app. As someone else noticed, not having an app doesn't seem to have slowed down OnlyFans
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    I feel like Onlyfans being a porn platform is the reason behind its success. Porn and sex are very strong motivators if dare not I say innovators for Platforms and technologies. I’m still hanging on the belief that VR will be catapulted by Porn.
vanous 5y ago
> Possible misleading title. Apple wants 30% of earnings, not “creator” earnings. "In writing and over the phone, we explained to Apple that we could pay them 30% of our revenues (from our 10% take rate). It'll be harder to cover costs and build features as a startup, but at least it'd be coming from us. Apple insisted on taking 30% of creators' total earnings."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
BoorishBears 5y ago
This is being pedantic to the point of being wrong. Because of the nature of the app, the earnings in-app, which Apple wants, are creator earnings. Your suggested title would be less specific to the point of being flat out wrong if Fanhouse makes earnings elsewhere... which they do.

mdoms 5y ago

This will keep happening as long as people keep agreeing to Apple's terms and building on their platform. I wouldn't touch Apple's platform with a 10 foot pole. Nothing here is new. It's getting harder to sympathise with developers who keep doing it.

CubsFan1060 5y ago
I'll give you the counterpoint. I'm very happy to spend money on apps and services that I like. However, I'm only going to do it through Apple's platform, for a variety of reasons. If you don't want to build on Apple's platform, that's completely fine. I won't be a customer. And maybe that will change the system, I really don't know.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  The issue is that this customer you're describing doesn't exist. It does provide a marginally higher amount of friction to use a non-native payment method, but there aren't any users out there cancelling their Netflix subscription because now Netflix gets 100% of the proceeds instead of 70%. At that point, you're inadvertently sabotaging the very company that you're trying to support, because your hardware manufacturer decided that they need to tax your software, too.
  - slver 5y ago
    How can you honestly tell a person who just shared their opinion "you don't exist"? I also would never enter my credit card in an app, UNLESS it's a huge, well-trusted brand (which this influencer app isn't). Many people wouldn't bother. The whole point of Apple handling this is that you trust Apple to have more clue than your average startup full of monkeys.
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      This is a big thing for me. I really do not want to give any vendor raw Payment information if I can help. Would much rather do so though a service like Apple Pay/Google Pay. And then only have to worry about that one vendor when they get a data breach then a dozen vendors and deal with a dozen data breaches.

hellisothers 5y ago

Seems pretty disingenuous given they had to have known this would happen (note that OnlyFans has no app)

falcolas 5y ago
Makes for a great soundbite though. "We had no idea going in that stepping in front of this bus would hurt us."
- Dah00n 5y ago
  "Amazon and Patreon doesn't get hit with a 30% tax. Why do we?" would be less disingenuous.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    Amazon (Kindle) and Patreon don't offer purchasing in their apps, exactly so they aren't charged 30%.
beckler 5y ago
Then why do Venmo and CashApp get a pass? Is Fanhouse trying to leverage Apple’s Payment APIs without paying or something?
- hellisothers 5y ago
  Those apps are not distributing content, I haven’t installed Fanhouse but from looking at their website it seems that you can consume the content you’re paying for through it.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    So Netflix?
    - hellisothers 5y ago

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

That's a nice business you got there. Shame if anything were to happen to it.

bgandrew 5y ago

Apple is just milking people at this point. Their devices are subpar for the cost and customer treatment is sometimes even worse.

valparaiso 5y ago
So don’t use it. Oh, most of Google engineers over the world and Silicon Valley are using iPhones. They even are given for free on par with Pixels when you are being hired. Are they that dumb and don’t understand that Apple is milking them?

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

Serious question, why does everything require an app? Why can't the same thing be accomplished via the mobile web? I get so tired of being prompted to install apps when you could just *show me the damned web page*. Anything that requires speed can be done via webassembly, and sure, anything like games can ship a native app.

JamesSwift 5y ago
Usually for proper push messaging and background processing
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  Those have been part of the web standards for ages (serviceworkers, web notifications).
  - azinman2 5y ago
    Web notifications don’t work on iOS and I’m assuming Android as well? Serviceworkers aren’t woken up in response to a background push if your phone is lock and not on that webpage.
    - drfuzzyness 5y ago
      From a user standpoint, Web Notifications work quite well on Android. When using Chrome for Android (Chromium), each site is assigned a separate Notification Channel so users can change notification priority or block notifications. Firefox for Android (Gecko) works similarly but without Notification Channels.
    - jeroenhd 5y ago
      Web notifications work fine on Android. Has Apple still not fixed notifications then? I was under the impression that they claimed to have massively improve Safari during last year's conference?

drivebycomment 5y ago

Per https://fanhouse.app/ 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, where they take some cut for themselves, while allowing other people to sell digital contents on their platform. Other than the argument that this could be an anti-trust situation (i.e. in that case, the argument would be that Apple is abusing their market position), what differentiates these two cases ?

cromwellian 5y ago
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?
- qeternity 5y ago
  They draw a line between digital and physical purchases.
  - smnrchrds 5y ago
    They don't force Netflix to pay them 30% either. The reality is they take 30% where they can overpower the other party. Where they are overpowered, they acquiesce.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      They also drew a line between in app and non in app transactions.
      - smnrchrds 5y ago
        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 https://marco.org/2020/09/11/app-review-changes

capybara_2020 5y ago

Just curious, if Apple is so bad, why do people build apps for it? Browsers are very robust now a days. I have never built a iPhone or Android app, never needed to. Browsers now a days I imagine can get you atleast 90% of the way. Why go to Apple if you can build a webapp. And it is cross platform so you do not have to maintain a separate Android app. What am I missing?

foepys 5y ago
Some simply cannot avoid it because Apple does not implement all necessary functionality for all kinds of apps in Safari and does not allow other browser engines that do on iOS.
nikanj 5y ago
A native app has access to way more marketable data than a browser page. Why do you think all the big sites keep on pushing you to install their app?
josephorjoe 5y ago
The web never implemented easy micropayments, and iPhone/Android did.
- jonny_eh 5y ago
  Actually, Apple Pay works great on the web, but doesn't charge a 30% fee.
  - taylodl 5y ago
    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 you can tell Walmart where to shove it and only sell your product at Costco. It's how retail works.

carabiner 5y ago

> We have creators who are unemployed from the pandemic. We have creators who need to pay rent, to pay tuition, to pay medical expenses, and they need their income to survive. Apple's 30% directly threatens their livelihoods. Does anyone find this reasoning disingenuous? "Will you think of the [children or other unprivileged group]?" Is Apple morally obligated to give money to people with harder lives? It weakens her whole argument. Jasmine knows this. She used to be on OnlyFans which has no app, and is an Ivy League (UPenn) grad. She's trying to keep her cash while making an emotional appeal.

brailsafe 5y ago
Yes, I find it disingenuous. It's bullshit and manipulative. I don't feel like Fanhouse is the second coming of Jesus.

xmly 5y ago

So the subscription apple tax work-around does not work anymore if you are making too much money?

salamandersauce 5y ago
More like not enough money. Netflix and Spotify leaving the App Store would be a big deal and piss off a lot of consumers. Months old startup a handful have heard of? Perfect to extort in Apple's eyes.
- alpacaillama 5y ago
  Netflix and Spotify don’t offer in-app purchases and come under the reader rule within the appstore guidelines. At least know about things before you talk about them dude.

patagonia 5y ago

How is Apple different than Amazon? Humans are bad at things we can’t touch. Imagine all physical goods shops had to be listed through a “Microsoft shop store” if you’re using the Edge browser. You can’t. Because that’d be dumb. But hey Apple made the phone and we sign away our soul and first born when it comes to software. So it follows Apple can keep all, all, every, globally, software vendor or creator or hobbyist from putting an app on “their” phone unless it goes through Apple.

slver 5y ago

The only thing I don't understand is why these people push apps on the AppStore and then whine about the rules they've agreed to. Apple's 30% is infamous. It's not something obscure about iTunes use in nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
Because they have a monopoly over 50% of the population, and many businesses quite literally have to participate or they would cease to exist. Do you think it'd be legal for Microsoft to charge a 30% fee on every transaction you make on Windows?
- taylodl 5y ago
  They do not have a monopoly. 50% or more of the population chose to be in Apple's walled garden. They knew the rules, they knew what they were buying. Some people don't want to be in Apple's walled garden, so they buy Android. Businesses tend to prefer Apple's ecosystem because sales data has shown that Apple's customers tend to pay more for applications and services - so they're coveted customers.
  - dvtkrlbs 5y ago
    You are delusional
    - dang 5y ago
      Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments to HN, and please don't do name-calling or personal attacks. Those things are not what this site is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- slver 5y ago
  Wait so "because [Apple] have a monopoly" (which isn't correct, but let's put that aside) they can push an app and then act surprised about Apple enforcing the ToS they agreed to? Yeah that's not good enough.

ThePowerOfFuet 5y ago

Based on this, I downloaded the Fanhouse app, but before signing up I figured I'd read the privacy policy [0]. >Information We Get When You Use the Service • Cookies, Log Data and other tracking technologies: When you use our Service, we and our business partners may collect certain information about your computer or device through technology such as cookies, web beacons, log files, or other tracking/recording tools. The information we collect through the use of tracking technologies includes, but is not limited to, IP address, browser information, referring/exit pages and URLs, click stream data and information about how you interact with links on the website, mobile app, or Service, domain names, landing pages, page views, cookie data that allows us to uniquely identify your browser and track your behavior on our site, mobile device type, mobile device IDs or other persistent identifiers, and location data collected from your mobile device. Some or all of this data may be combined with other information described above. When you access our Service by or through a mobile device, we may receive or collect and store a unique identification numbers associated with your device or our mobile application (including, for example, a UDID, Unique ID for Advertisers (“IDFA”), Google Ad ID, or Windows Advertising ID or other identifier), mobile carrier, device type, model and manufacturer, mobile device operating system brand and model, phone number, and, depending on your mobile device settings, your geographical location data, including GPS coordinates (e.g. latitude and/or longitude), WiFi location or similar information regarding the location of your mobile device. You have the option to either accept or refuse these cookies, and know when a cookie is being sent to your computer. If you choose to refuse our cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. • Analytics Data: We may also collect analytics data, or use third-party analytics tools, to help us measure traffic and usage trends for the Service. These tools collect information sent by your browser or mobile device, including the pages you visit, your use of third party applications, and other information that assists us in analyzing and improving the Service. That'll be a hard no from me. App deleted. (Also absolutely illegal in the EU, and not in line with their own App Store listing's privacy disclosure.) [0] https://fanhouse.app/docs/privacy https://fanhouse.app/docs/privacy

amrrs 5y ago

One of the replies from the founder: >We removed the ability to subscribe in app, but Apple still required us to do their 30% or would remove our app. However, if you do have the current app, it's not yet subject to Apple's 30% and all creators still will receive 90% of their earnings. Web will also remain functional https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/1402716822856687616?s=19 https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/14027168228566876...

Jcowell 5y ago
This is what I largely have a problem with (I personally don’t care about the 30% either way) why can Patreon, a similar service, do this but This app can’t?
- danso 5y ago
  Maybe it's been grandfathered in? But isn't it already the status quo for Apple to selectively give favorable treatment to bigger operators? Prime Video's app previously disabled in-app buying, but at some point in the past year they made a deal with Apple: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-tv-prime-30-percent-developers https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-... > Apple and Amazon very, very quietly unveiled a monumental app deal this week, without fanfare or, sadly, much in the way of transparency. Out of nowhere, buttons to buy or rent movies appeared in the Amazon Prime Video app. It’s difficult to express how strange this is: for over a decade, Apple has stuck to the rule that all digital goods sold in iOS apps must use Apple’s payment methods, including Apple’s 30 percent cut.
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    Isn’t that program enrollable though? There’s a thing to beta roll out a feature to select apps and then have it as an API or program.
  - arvinsim 5y ago
    Why is everyone consenting with this favoritism?

somethingAlex 5y ago

Does anyone know to what extent Apple differentiates between in-app purchases and subscriptions? I've heard Netflix and Spotify do not give Apple 30% because, well, that'd be kind of ridiculous for these companies to give 30% of their revenue to Apple. But what about mid-sized companies? I pay a yearly subscription fee to Headspace. If Apple is actually taking 30% of their revenue because people access it via an iPhone? That... just doesn't seem sustainable.

Yaina 5y ago
You can't subscribe to Netflix and Spotify on the App Store anymore. It was possible for a while, where both just handed the costs down to customers. E.g. when Spotify costs 10$ on their site, it used to cost 13$ when purchased through Apple. I know Spotify stopped supporting in-app purchases when Apple Music came out, because even though both services are priced similarly, from within the Apple ecosystem it seemed that Spotify costs 30% more. And of course because of the anti-steering provisions for Apps, Spotify couldn't even tell iOS users that Spotify is cheaper when you visit their site.
querulous 5y ago
if you pay that subscription fee via the app store then apple takes a 30% (or possibly 15%, in a few scenarios) cut

andjd 5y ago

Down in the thread, they compare their platform to Patreon, which has an app. Exclusive content is a substantial part of Patreon. I'd like a straight-forward explanation of why Patreon is allowed to avoid in-app payments. It seems like a straight-forward violation of apple's rules. Apple having its rules is one thing, but applying them unevenly seems like a problem too, since it protects a whole host of 'grandfathered' businesses from competition.

Dah00n 5y ago
If you are big enough the chance of getting hit by this diminishes and if you do get hit you can make a deal (like Amazon does) to pay less. Rules are for plebs and apps Apple think it might copy some day.

Yaina 5y ago

People in the comments are right so far that this could be just a website, but I think we can turn that around and say that Apple is not providing any services that the developers of Fanhouse really need or want. They just want to be on the store, and all the services and APIs Apple provides aren't really features as long as developers are forced to use them.

ApolloFortyNine 5y ago

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?

amelius 5y ago
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/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en 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 “gatekeeper”.
- pier25 5y ago
  Regarding your two points, in 2020 Apple claimed there were about 23M developers [1] and they charge $99 every year. Even if only 50% of those 23M devs are actually paying the $99 fee that is still over $1B a year. [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-wwdc-2020-kicks-off-in-june-with-an-all-new-online-format/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/03/apples-wwdc-2020-kick...
- nipponese 5y ago
  The argument is that it's industry standard. Microsoft and Sony also take 30% https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playstation-xbox-epic-games-apple/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playst...
  - manigandham 5y ago
    There are alternate ways to get software on those platforms. There isn’t on Apple mobile devices.

Firebrand 5y ago

How timely for Instagram’s CEO to say the quiet part out loud and announce that they’ll be helping content creators to get around Apple’s 30% cut today: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/09/instagram-ceo-facebook-will-help-users-get-around-apple-cut-of-transactions.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/09/instagram-ceo-facebook-will-... I think Zuckerberg was right when he said Apple’s practices have ultimately benefited Facebook in eliminating any competition.

otterley 5y ago

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 going to end up giving them 63% of their IaP revenue (90% of 70%) instead of 90%. This is a business problem disguised as a justice issue.

echelon 5y ago
> 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 computing. What the question really should be is, "why should Apple get to enjoy all commerce and freedoms linked to computing?" Through marketing and developing a good product, they've brought themselves into a market leader position. The choice to lock down their device may have made sense at 5%, but now it suffocates our entire industry under their gargantuan weight. Apple isn't a device maker anymore. They're the fabric of computing itself. They have all the customers, they control all the software, and they make all the choices. You don't get ingress without going through them. They've been transformed into an analog of a common carrier, and the law now needs to treat them as such. The only path forward is to force Apple to allow web-based downloads of apps, no longer allow them to force Apple payment rails, and to enable non-Safari based browsers to be installed. Simple fix that will restore balance and health to the industry. After this change happens, Apple will remain a 2 Trillion dollar company. This has negligible impact on their revenue - all it does is force them to work harder and gives the rest of us much-needed breathing room. (Nevermind the right to repair and compute arguments.)
- arvinsim 5y ago
  Some people like the status quo and would defend it to the death because they make money off it.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

It's time to stop asking "Why does Apple think they deserve 30% of App Store revenue" and start asking "Why has Apple not demanded 30% of web app revenue yet?". The justification of "We put all the hard work into building the hardware, the OS and the stack so deserve a cut" still stands if a website is opened using the Safari engine. If it doesn't stand then neither does the App Store cut.

Black101 5y ago
> "Why has Apple not demanded 30% of web app revenue yet?" They would if they knew how. Which is probably why they block features on the web so that they can't compete with native apps.
- stemlord 5y ago
  You're talking about webm right?
  - J5892 5y ago
    The standard modern web in general. Mobile Safari is the Internet Explorer of the modern web.
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    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 - Battery Status API - Ambient Light Sensor - HDCP Policy Check extension for EME - Proximity Sensor - WebHID - Serial API - Web USB - Geolocation Sensor (background geolocation) - User Idle Detection
    - fomine3 5y ago
      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.

mewse-hn 5y ago

I just checked and I'm surprised Patreon has an iOS app. I wonder how they're dodging this type of shakedown.

RandallBrown 5y ago

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 $1.50 if they haven't made $1 million so far this year or last year). I understand that Fanhouse wants to give $9 of those dollars to the creator. They can, but they still owe their fee to Apple. Unfortunately that ends up being more money than the whole transaction so the economics just don't work. What amount is fair for Apple to charge for payment processing and the infrastructure to actually make the purchases?

barbazoo 5y ago
> 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.
- RandallBrown 5y ago
  What exemptions does Netflix have? They aren't using their own payment provider since you can't actually pay for anything from within the app.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > What exemptions does Netflix have? Netflix is exempted from mandatory usage of Apple's payment platform. OP stated that Apple is threatening to pull the app if she does the same thing that Netflix gets away with: avoid using Apple's payment platform, and set up payments outside of the app. For a company that loves demanding its partners adopt Most-Favored Nation clauses, Apple sure does hate treating its app developers the same.
    - 5y ago

jfrunyon 5y ago

I don't understand. Has Apple changed their terms of services to disallow this? Is it not clearly disallowed by their terms of service? Or has it been disallowed for the whole 8 months of its existence, and this person is mad that they only got away with it for that long?

xbar 5y ago

How is Fanhouse content different than other in-app purchases?

grouphugs 5y ago

fuck apple

brailsafe 5y ago

Something seems a bit sus here. There's a whole lot of "I'm poor and on food stamps, relying on my brand new company to pay me as a creator". Are they even "creating" on the platform? Seems like they're some kind of middleman for every other service kind of like hootsuite or something. Have they cleared that 1 million 15% threshold already in 8 months?

etchalon 5y ago

"Company is shocked to discover that the agreement they signed to do a thing is being enforced."

adolph 5y ago

fanhouse is a SFW platform where creators can monetize their social media presence by posting about themselves and their lives 1. Why would creators using fanhouse get to bypass Apple’s tax? 2. Why is this being treated differently from Kindle, which allows creators to distribute content via an app offered in the App Store without paying 30% of ebook price?

alpacaillama 5y ago
2. Fanhouse not only has one off transactions but things like pay to view pictures of someone etc

skc 5y ago

It's a shame that these companies can't even vote with their feet because Apple users are too lucrative as a market. Hell of a position to find yourself in as a business.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Animats 5y ago

Jasmine from Fanhouse is likely to get a speaking slot at the upcoming Congressional hearings on Apple.

valparaiso 5y ago
It would be interesting to hear how she wants to make money on Apple platform by not following the rules and not paying fees for access to Apple user base. It seems zoomers live in alternative version of Universe where everyone is owing them something.
- Animats 5y ago
  "Paying fees for access to Apple's user base" is called an "illegal tie-in sale" in antitrust law.[1] [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
- VMtest 5y ago
  She, the fanhouse app owner, only takes 10% from the content creators
  - valparaiso 5y ago
    It doesn’t really matter. Apple takes 30% since rules are for all. You can do your business on Android in 3rd party store or without store and don’t pay any fees. But Android users are poor by statistics and no one is using sideloading or 3rd part stores in US. That’s why she hates Apple - they built successful and platform by investing billions and now someone wants to exploit it for free.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chad_strategic 5y ago

Hmm... This is interesting. Did the terms of the contract change? I'm not an app developer and I know that Apple takes a 30% cut.

d3ntb3ev1l 5y ago

Should stores not have to pay rent? I mean what gives with that!

valparaiso 5y ago

That’s just ridiculous. Person wants to make money on Apple install user base which they were growing for years by investing billions and doesn’t want to pay fee for possibility to make business on platform in which they didn’t invest a penny.

qayxc 5y ago
Am I understanding you correctly here: so a company that sells hardware, which they sell at a profit, has the right to exploit the works of others because it runs on their hardware? That's a very strange point of view. So you would be OK with Google taking money from every website they list, because according to your logic it's Google who invested billions to make your website searchable and thus deserves a cut from whatever you earn with it? Because that's kind of what's going on here. Developers pay to get their app into the store. This should cover the cost of maintaining the app store. If you charge for your app, there might be an argument to be had. But if you sell products and services using the app, there's no way Apple is involved with that other than that the app runs on their hardware, which doesn't cost them a single cent.

randyrand 5y ago

Apple has always taken 30% of creator earnings. Even small indy developers have paid this cut. Did she really expect otherwise?

numair 5y ago

There is a culture, that has remained in place since the time when Apple was about to go bankrupt, to try to keep every penny possible. This corporate culture literally saved the company from its death (remember the Bill Gates Borg appearance on the giant screen in ‘97?) but it’s becoming a bit much now. Apple should have been pulling every trick in the book to help this young female entrepreneur build a digital platform — she’s exactly the sort of person we need in a leadership role in that industry. Instead, they’re killing her business — what? This goes beyond “the rules” ... It’s time for their culture to evolve.

chunsj 5y ago

I think not using Apple platform is the way to go if you cannot agree their ToS.

perfectstorm 5y ago

I must be following 50+ iOS developers on Twitter and none of them have liked this tweet. It's surreal. I feel like people are afraid of Apple's retaliation if they like this tweet.

andrewmcwatters 5y ago

I think these content creators have it too good, they're only taxed about 30% by the government, and 30% by social media platforms, and only 30% by hardware platforms. That's a whole 10% they're left with! Those content creators should pledge 30% of their net earnings to worthwhile causes. It only makes sense. Besides, look at how much they're earning gross to begin with. A whole $0.99 per app, and $0.04 per click on advertisements! These people are rolling in it.

ajfjrbfbf 5y ago
They're actually left with 34% if you do the math correctly.
- ampdepolymerase 5y ago
  Don't forget to account for floating point rounding errors.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

Last time I have checked Apple's appstore rules, if you don't take payments within an app and you DON'T tell users of an app to pay outside of it, you are clea from their tax. So, for example, if you ask for their email and then email them to pay via their website, they won't bother you. Has this policy changed? Or does Fanhouse ask for payments from within an app?

arid_eden 5y ago

I find the creators livelihoods lines to be attention grabbing and muddying the waters about what this argument should be about. The Netflix exemption should be available to all apps - that point is what the Epic lawsuit should be about (they've confused the issue too by talking about having their own app store). Apple could then fight for developers to use Apple Pay on its merits in the marketplace. In the case of Fanhouse, the rules were well known (and disliked) when they started. They should have created their product as a web app - their particular use case is one where the technical limitations of a web app wouldn't have been much of an issue. If they felt so strongly that their product had to be in the Apple App store to succeed, they are justifying Apple's 30% cut.

swiley 5y ago

This wouldn't be a problem if Apple wasn't the only company allowed to sign iPhone apps.