3 ms·

Well… yes. This is a well-established factor of being in the App Store which not even other massive corporations are exempt from, and surely she knew about it b

Well… yes. This is a well-established factor of being in the App Store which not even other massive corporations are exempt from, and surely she knew about it before submitting her app. Did she think an exception would be made for her for some reason?

keleftheriou 5y ago
Both the legal & ethical aspects of Apple’s rules are currently being questioned. Also: If a platform developer doesn’t charge their creators a commission, Apple doesn’t get a cut either – great. But should the developer decide to keep even 1% to run their own business, Apple asks for almost a third of the entire transaction – how does that make any sense?
- Cyberdog 5y ago
  Maybe it makes sense. Maybe it doesn't. Regardless, those are the rules to be on the App Store. They are widely known and shouldn't have been a surprise or a source of frustration to anyone. If her entire business model was somehow built on Apple bending the rules for her and they failed to do so, that's on her. She should have anticipated these rules and worked within or around them as everyone else does. If I ask you to take your shoes off before coming inside my house, and you tromp on in with your shoes still on and naively expect I'll just be cool with that, don't be surprised if I just kick you out of my house instead. And then don't expect anyone to care when you go protest in the public square about the injustice of me not letting you violate a rule I hold everyone (including myself) to. (At any rate, didn't Apple actually reduce fees to 15% for smaller companies last year? Isn't that still in effect?)
  - keleftheriou 5y ago
    Surprise? No. A source frustration? Absolutely – the rules are frustrating by definition, and this is the point here. And even at 15%, Fanhouse would still need to either raise their prices, reduce creator payouts, or run at a loss. Plus, the rules shouldn’t be such that they disincentivize companies from growing. Frustrating, indeed.
  - ampgt 5y ago
    I’m glad I’m not the only one who strictly enforces a no-shoe house policy (I mean, have you seen the piss puddles men stand in at the urinal?).
- olliej 5y ago
  The legal aspect seem to revolve entirely around their restrictions on other payment services, not the platform commission.
musicale 5y ago
> not even other massive corporations are exempt from Massive corporations can sometimes make a special deal with Apple. Small companies, not so much. Therefore it makes sense for small companies to assume that they will have to follow Apple's rules, whether or not they agree with them.

keleftheriou 5y ago

Both the legal & ethical aspects of Apple’s rules are currently being questioned. Also: If a platform developer doesn’t charge their creators a commission, Apple doesn’t get a cut either – great. But should the developer decide to keep even 1% to run their own business, Apple asks for almost a third of the entire transaction – how does that make any sense?

Cyberdog 5y ago
Maybe it makes sense. Maybe it doesn't. Regardless, those are the rules to be on the App Store. They are widely known and shouldn't have been a surprise or a source of frustration to anyone. If her entire business model was somehow built on Apple bending the rules for her and they failed to do so, that's on her. She should have anticipated these rules and worked within or around them as everyone else does. If I ask you to take your shoes off before coming inside my house, and you tromp on in with your shoes still on and naively expect I'll just be cool with that, don't be surprised if I just kick you out of my house instead. And then don't expect anyone to care when you go protest in the public square about the injustice of me not letting you violate a rule I hold everyone (including myself) to. (At any rate, didn't Apple actually reduce fees to 15% for smaller companies last year? Isn't that still in effect?)
- keleftheriou 5y ago
  Surprise? No. A source frustration? Absolutely – the rules are frustrating by definition, and this is the point here. And even at 15%, Fanhouse would still need to either raise their prices, reduce creator payouts, or run at a loss. Plus, the rules shouldn’t be such that they disincentivize companies from growing. Frustrating, indeed.
- ampgt 5y ago
  I’m glad I’m not the only one who strictly enforces a no-shoe house policy (I mean, have you seen the piss puddles men stand in at the urinal?).
olliej 5y ago
The legal aspect seem to revolve entirely around their restrictions on other payment services, not the platform commission.

musicale 5y ago

> not even other massive corporations are exempt from Massive corporations can sometimes make a special deal with Apple. Small companies, not so much. Therefore it makes sense for small companies to assume that they will have to follow Apple's rules, whether or not they agree with them.