11 ms·

Per https://fanhouse.app/ https://fanhouse.app/, "Fanhouse is the place where creators can monetize their social media personalities by posting freely about the

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
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Oh, I did not know all of that. I would agree those policies are ridiculous.
        AlexandrB 5y ago
        That post is from Sept. 2020, but Netflix (and Audible, Comixology + others) have been dodging the 30% cut for years simply by not allowing you to pay within the app. I'm not sure Apple had Netflix in mind with this change.
        smnrchrds 5y ago
        See my other comment here about Netflix: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27453395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27453395
    - acchow 5y ago
      I believe the majority of a Netflix subscriber's consumption is still on their TV, not on their iPhone/iPad. But you also cannot pay for Netflix in the iPhone app. You have to do it on their website.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        You can't pay Fanhouse on iOS, either.
      - Hnrobert42 5y ago
        I pay Netflix through my iPhone. I can manage the subscription along with my other iPhone app subscriptions.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        > But you also cannot pay for Netflix in the iPhone app. You have to do it on their website The App Store explicitly rejects smaller apps that attempt to do this. See Hey, the email client that tried the exact same thing and got the cold-shoulder.
    - typest 5y ago
      This is because Netflix, knowing Apple would take 30%, does not allow you to sign up via an iPhone app. Apple takes 30% if you sign up via iPhone, not if you sign up via web and then use the iPhone app.
      - smnrchrds 5y ago
        Netflix was able to do this because Apple carved out an exception for them by gerrymandering the rules so Netflix could do this. They did that because Netflix was powerful enough. Hey tried to do a similar thing, but Apple was having none of it. They were going to force them to pay them 30%, because they were not powerful enough. When the social media storm made them more powerful, Apple acquiesced.
        ibero 5y ago
        wait, what was Netflix able to do?
        smnrchrds 5y ago
        Netflix does not allow you to sign up in their iOS app. You have to sing up and set up payment through their website, but you can use your username and password to use your subscription in iOS. They do not pay the Apple Tax. Hey tried to use the exact same, but Apple said they MUST allow sign ups in the app, using in-app purchase API, and paying 30% to Apple. Apple was not going to allow Hey to do what Netflix/Spotify/etc have done for ages, until public sentiments and social media storm forced them to acquiesce.
        sida 5y ago
        audible - the audio book app also does not allow purchases in-app. Fanhouse can just let purchases happen on web
        smnrchrds 5y ago
        You mean Audible by Amazon.com, Inc.?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - ksec 5y ago
    That used to make sense in the early days of Smartphone era. Precisely because Digital have zero variable cost for each additional goods. And Apple wasn't very straight with those rules. They only enforce it on Software and Games, not services. Now everything goes through your Smartphone. And the idea, to quote what Apple has been saying in court, they need to recoup those API cost. As they are using their API, they want a cut. Since the Apps for both Physical and Digital goods uses those API, and Digital Goods doesn't necessary use those API for creation. ( e.g I use Windows to create ), why are they only charging Digital Goods and not Physicals? The only reason why Apple charges 30% of Digital Goods is because they know Digital Goods have zero replication cost. The cost of an additional Digital Goods is essentially zero, they want 30% of it. And Physical goods have basic unit cost. So they are charging base on the product margin. And this was clear in the Wordpess case, once they look at domain name registration where the whole industry is basically operating with 0% margin. Apple decide to put an exemption on it. Then became a question, how did we arrive at 30% in the first place? If you look at Amazon Web Store, they have different percentage rate for different product? Why? Because they is how the market have worked over the years. They are basing the commission on current market rate / margin. Just like your Super Market has different margin for different product. Ever since Apple decided on their Doubling Services Revenue by 2020, they have chased down every single 30% services. It is sad how much good faith they have burned.
  - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
    Let me go even further. Why not get a 30% cut of every single credit card operation validated through that bank's iOS app? Why not get a 30% cut of every wire transfer done through that bank's iOS app? Why not get a 30% cut of every national tax declaration submitted through an iOS app? Neither of these is physical. I actually wish they would do this. It just would go to show the power we are bestowing on these "gatekeepers" while governments keep pushing more and more vital services as "apps".
  - xdennis 5y ago
    You've explained how those two are different, but not why Apple is entitled to money from digital goods but not physical ones.
    - valparaiso 5y ago
      Because that’s their business model which was stated by judge in Epic vs Apple case. Such types of business are legal for decades. You can’t change that for Apple by not damaging everyone else. Like Epic sells nearly same Fortnite skins for kids making millions and not allowing any independent designers to sell them in Fortnite skin market.
- insert_coin 5y ago
  Because it's America and they can decide to charge whatever they want for their product?
- sharkjacobs 5y ago
  Apple draws a pretty clear line, it's the difference between buying a book and an ebook. An ebook is delivered and consumed on your iPhone or iPad, a book is not.
  - post_break 5y ago
    What about e-currency? They don't take a cut from coinbase.
  - hakube 5y ago
    What about Patreon?
    - lilyball 5y ago
      Patreon probably gets by because a lot of Patreon rewards are physical items, or other services performed by the creator where Patreon (and by extension Apple) cannot guarantee will be received. Meanwhile an app whose subscription model is “you get access to digital content” falls square within Apple’s IAP rules. I’m rather shocked Fanhouse got approved in the first place.
      - arvinsim 5y ago
        The fact that Fanhouse got approved means Apple's rules are arbitrary.
        LdSGSgvupDV 5y ago
        Not so arbitrary. If you are big and in the market Apple is not interested in, you are safe. Once Apple wants to step into that market, you should be careful (ex: spotify).
  - sfifs 5y ago
    Don't let Apple PR fool you into thinking commercial decisions like this are anything like principle based :-) If Amazon, Uber and Lyft drop iPhone support, people will atop using iPhones and that's pretty much the only reason Apple doesn't charge them a commission.
- prezjordan 5y ago
  The difference is that Uber and Doordash have a lot bargaining power
- TradingPlaces 5y ago
  Products and services in the real world have marginal costs. Digital products and services have near-zero marginal cost, so they pay.
qeternity 5y ago
This. She is operating a platform for creators…that is literally what the AppStore is. She knew the rules when she started playing this game, and wants to appeal to emotions and hyperbole like this is an issue between “life and death”. Why does she get to keep 10%? It’s arbitrary. What if I want to start an app that helps creators manage their Fanhouse content? Should I ask Fanhouse for a cut of their fees so that I can pass on 90% of gross earnings to creator?
- TX0098812 5y ago
  > She knew the rules when she started playing this game Knowing the situation is not the same as accepting it. Just because I know a couple of large actors control the market does not mean I have to accept the situation.
  - insert_coin 5y ago
    If you engage with those actors accepting the terms that is exactly what it means.
    - TX0098812 5y ago
      ...no. You can't meaningfully accept terms when they are a requirement to enter the market.
      - insert_coin 5y ago
        They are not required to accept them, OnlyFans is doing it just fine without Apple. They chose to be in Apple's platform. Voluntarily.
      - qeternity 5y ago
        This is absurd. In any other situation you’d never argue this. Ok, so I can just ignore all regulations because I don’t like them? I can sell unsafe food in my restaurant because I don’t want to agree to the terms the government says I must adhere to?
TX0098812 5y ago
> 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 ? Well I think you already explained it. One is a company large enough to effectively dictate the terms of the market and thereby practically tax every other company. The other is a small tool among many others.
fbelzile 5y ago
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 release apps via the App Store. I think what developers want is a fair price for what they get out of the App Store and a choice to not use it if they want. Selling a $5 digital good or a $100 dollar digital good costs the exact same to Apple (minus the 2% credit card fee).
- prepend 5y ago
  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 some regulation forcing cost plus fees it makes things suck more (eg, water and power).
  - eitland 5y ago
    > 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".
  - fbelzile 5y ago
    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.
devit 5y ago
You can easily use another platform instead of Fanhouse (users can easily go on another website or app). You can't easily use another delivery method for apps to iPhone users (that would require iPhone users to also buy and carry an Android device, which is a massive hassle).
- the_other 5y ago
  Or use the web.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Telling people that the web is a suitable replacement for native apps is an empty promise, especially when your only option for a browser on iOS is one that is notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web.
    - defaultname 5y ago
      "notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web." There are a lot of anti-Apple arguments a passionate critic might leverage, but claiming that Safari is "notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web" is just foolish. It is laughable nonsense.
      - lostmsu 5y ago
        Has Apple added support for web apps yet? They were around for years now, that would be a prerequisite for switching to web.
        musicale 5y ago
        Apple added support for iPhone web apps in 2007, including native-style widgets and touch navigation support in mobile Safari. This was enough to support many early games and apps, and Apple even had a curated directory for them. At the time, developers complained bitterly that Apple didn't provide a native SDK, nor did they support Flash or Java web apps. In 2021, mobile Safari is good enough to run Amazon Luna game streaming, so you can actually stream fairly demanding games like Far Cry 6 to an iPhone. However, Safari (and, to a lesser extent, Firefox) is far behind in terms of feature parity with Chrome for implementing Google's vision of Progressive Web Apps. In particular, Apple has announced that they don't intend to support a number of web APIs (Bluetooth, NFC, etc.) for privacy and security (and presumably business) reasons.
beervirus 5y ago
If a company that helps monetize social media personalities goes out of business, meh.
addicted 5y ago
Does fanhouse also sell access to their “platform” to the users at $600 a pop minimum? It’s a meaningless comparison because they are completely different kinds of platforms. The vast majority of the world will never hear of Fanhouse and it’s competitors’ platforms. The vast majority of the world can literally not live their lives without Apple or Google’s platforms. There is no comparison between the 2.
Siira 5y ago
There doesn't even need to be a difference. Platforms need to have a way to allow nested platforms, or we will lose a lot of economic output to the platform tax.

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
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Oh, I did not know all of that. I would agree those policies are ridiculous.
      - AlexandrB 5y ago
        That post is from Sept. 2020, but Netflix (and Audible, Comixology + others) have been dodging the 30% cut for years simply by not allowing you to pay within the app. I'm not sure Apple had Netflix in mind with this change.
        smnrchrds 5y ago
        See my other comment here about Netflix: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27453395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27453395
  - acchow 5y ago
    I believe the majority of a Netflix subscriber's consumption is still on their TV, not on their iPhone/iPad. But you also cannot pay for Netflix in the iPhone app. You have to do it on their website.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      You can't pay Fanhouse on iOS, either.
    - Hnrobert42 5y ago
      I pay Netflix through my iPhone. I can manage the subscription along with my other iPhone app subscriptions.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      > But you also cannot pay for Netflix in the iPhone app. You have to do it on their website The App Store explicitly rejects smaller apps that attempt to do this. See Hey, the email client that tried the exact same thing and got the cold-shoulder.
  - typest 5y ago
    This is because Netflix, knowing Apple would take 30%, does not allow you to sign up via an iPhone app. Apple takes 30% if you sign up via iPhone, not if you sign up via web and then use the iPhone app.
    - smnrchrds 5y ago
      Netflix was able to do this because Apple carved out an exception for them by gerrymandering the rules so Netflix could do this. They did that because Netflix was powerful enough. Hey tried to do a similar thing, but Apple was having none of it. They were going to force them to pay them 30%, because they were not powerful enough. When the social media storm made them more powerful, Apple acquiesced.
      - ibero 5y ago
        wait, what was Netflix able to do?
        smnrchrds 5y ago
        Netflix does not allow you to sign up in their iOS app. You have to sing up and set up payment through their website, but you can use your username and password to use your subscription in iOS. They do not pay the Apple Tax. Hey tried to use the exact same, but Apple said they MUST allow sign ups in the app, using in-app purchase API, and paying 30% to Apple. Apple was not going to allow Hey to do what Netflix/Spotify/etc have done for ages, until public sentiments and social media storm forced them to acquiesce.
      - sida 5y ago
        audible - the audio book app also does not allow purchases in-app. Fanhouse can just let purchases happen on web
        smnrchrds 5y ago
        You mean Audible by Amazon.com, Inc.?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ksec 5y ago
  That used to make sense in the early days of Smartphone era. Precisely because Digital have zero variable cost for each additional goods. And Apple wasn't very straight with those rules. They only enforce it on Software and Games, not services. Now everything goes through your Smartphone. And the idea, to quote what Apple has been saying in court, they need to recoup those API cost. As they are using their API, they want a cut. Since the Apps for both Physical and Digital goods uses those API, and Digital Goods doesn't necessary use those API for creation. ( e.g I use Windows to create ), why are they only charging Digital Goods and not Physicals? The only reason why Apple charges 30% of Digital Goods is because they know Digital Goods have zero replication cost. The cost of an additional Digital Goods is essentially zero, they want 30% of it. And Physical goods have basic unit cost. So they are charging base on the product margin. And this was clear in the Wordpess case, once they look at domain name registration where the whole industry is basically operating with 0% margin. Apple decide to put an exemption on it. Then became a question, how did we arrive at 30% in the first place? If you look at Amazon Web Store, they have different percentage rate for different product? Why? Because they is how the market have worked over the years. They are basing the commission on current market rate / margin. Just like your Super Market has different margin for different product. Ever since Apple decided on their Doubling Services Revenue by 2020, they have chased down every single 30% services. It is sad how much good faith they have burned.
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  Let me go even further. Why not get a 30% cut of every single credit card operation validated through that bank's iOS app? Why not get a 30% cut of every wire transfer done through that bank's iOS app? Why not get a 30% cut of every national tax declaration submitted through an iOS app? Neither of these is physical. I actually wish they would do this. It just would go to show the power we are bestowing on these "gatekeepers" while governments keep pushing more and more vital services as "apps".
- xdennis 5y ago
  You've explained how those two are different, but not why Apple is entitled to money from digital goods but not physical ones.
  - valparaiso 5y ago
    Because that’s their business model which was stated by judge in Epic vs Apple case. Such types of business are legal for decades. You can’t change that for Apple by not damaging everyone else. Like Epic sells nearly same Fortnite skins for kids making millions and not allowing any independent designers to sell them in Fortnite skin market.
insert_coin 5y ago
Because it's America and they can decide to charge whatever they want for their product?
sharkjacobs 5y ago
Apple draws a pretty clear line, it's the difference between buying a book and an ebook. An ebook is delivered and consumed on your iPhone or iPad, a book is not.
- post_break 5y ago
  What about e-currency? They don't take a cut from coinbase.
- hakube 5y ago
  What about Patreon?
  - lilyball 5y ago
    Patreon probably gets by because a lot of Patreon rewards are physical items, or other services performed by the creator where Patreon (and by extension Apple) cannot guarantee will be received. Meanwhile an app whose subscription model is “you get access to digital content” falls square within Apple’s IAP rules. I’m rather shocked Fanhouse got approved in the first place.
    - arvinsim 5y ago
      The fact that Fanhouse got approved means Apple's rules are arbitrary.
      - LdSGSgvupDV 5y ago
        Not so arbitrary. If you are big and in the market Apple is not interested in, you are safe. Once Apple wants to step into that market, you should be careful (ex: spotify).
- sfifs 5y ago
  Don't let Apple PR fool you into thinking commercial decisions like this are anything like principle based :-) If Amazon, Uber and Lyft drop iPhone support, people will atop using iPhones and that's pretty much the only reason Apple doesn't charge them a commission.
prezjordan 5y ago
The difference is that Uber and Doordash have a lot bargaining power
TradingPlaces 5y ago
Products and services in the real world have marginal costs. Digital products and services have near-zero marginal cost, so they pay.

qeternity 5y ago

This. She is operating a platform for creators…that is literally what the AppStore is. She knew the rules when she started playing this game, and wants to appeal to emotions and hyperbole like this is an issue between “life and death”. Why does she get to keep 10%? It’s arbitrary. What if I want to start an app that helps creators manage their Fanhouse content? Should I ask Fanhouse for a cut of their fees so that I can pass on 90% of gross earnings to creator?

TX0098812 5y ago
> She knew the rules when she started playing this game Knowing the situation is not the same as accepting it. Just because I know a couple of large actors control the market does not mean I have to accept the situation.
- insert_coin 5y ago
  If you engage with those actors accepting the terms that is exactly what it means.
  - TX0098812 5y ago
    ...no. You can't meaningfully accept terms when they are a requirement to enter the market.
    - insert_coin 5y ago
      They are not required to accept them, OnlyFans is doing it just fine without Apple. They chose to be in Apple's platform. Voluntarily.
    - qeternity 5y ago
      This is absurd. In any other situation you’d never argue this. Ok, so I can just ignore all regulations because I don’t like them? I can sell unsafe food in my restaurant because I don’t want to agree to the terms the government says I must adhere to?

TX0098812 5y ago

> 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 ? Well I think you already explained it. One is a company large enough to effectively dictate the terms of the market and thereby practically tax every other company. The other is a small tool among many others.

fbelzile 5y ago

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 release apps via the App Store. I think what developers want is a fair price for what they get out of the App Store and a choice to not use it if they want. Selling a $5 digital good or a $100 dollar digital good costs the exact same to Apple (minus the 2% credit card fee).

prepend 5y ago
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 some regulation forcing cost plus fees it makes things suck more (eg, water and power).
- eitland 5y ago
  > 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".
- fbelzile 5y ago
  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.

devit 5y ago

You can easily use another platform instead of Fanhouse (users can easily go on another website or app). You can't easily use another delivery method for apps to iPhone users (that would require iPhone users to also buy and carry an Android device, which is a massive hassle).

the_other 5y ago
Or use the web.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Telling people that the web is a suitable replacement for native apps is an empty promise, especially when your only option for a browser on iOS is one that is notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    "notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web." There are a lot of anti-Apple arguments a passionate critic might leverage, but claiming that Safari is "notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web" is just foolish. It is laughable nonsense.
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      Has Apple added support for web apps yet? They were around for years now, that would be a prerequisite for switching to web.
      - musicale 5y ago
        Apple added support for iPhone web apps in 2007, including native-style widgets and touch navigation support in mobile Safari. This was enough to support many early games and apps, and Apple even had a curated directory for them. At the time, developers complained bitterly that Apple didn't provide a native SDK, nor did they support Flash or Java web apps. In 2021, mobile Safari is good enough to run Amazon Luna game streaming, so you can actually stream fairly demanding games like Far Cry 6 to an iPhone. However, Safari (and, to a lesser extent, Firefox) is far behind in terms of feature parity with Chrome for implementing Google's vision of Progressive Web Apps. In particular, Apple has announced that they don't intend to support a number of web APIs (Bluetooth, NFC, etc.) for privacy and security (and presumably business) reasons.

beervirus 5y ago

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

addicted 5y ago

Does fanhouse also sell access to their “platform” to the users at $600 a pop minimum? It’s a meaningless comparison because they are completely different kinds of platforms. The vast majority of the world will never hear of Fanhouse and it’s competitors’ platforms. The vast majority of the world can literally not live their lives without Apple or Google’s platforms. There is no comparison between the 2.

Siira 5y ago

There doesn't even need to be a difference. Platforms need to have a way to allow nested platforms, or we will lose a lot of economic output to the platform tax.