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?

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.

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.

You think people will stop using iPhones because a ride sharing app goes away?

Ever wonder what would happen to Uber and Lyft lost iPhone customers as a user base?

They would both suffer drastically. If it came to that, I’m sure other big companies would join in as well in an attempt to punish Apple ie Netflix,Spotify, and Epic Games

That could definitely put a hamper on new iPhone sales.

What about e-currency? They don't take a cut from coinbase.

What about Patreon?

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.

The fact that Fanhouse got approved means Apple's rules are arbitrary.

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).

They draw a line between digital and physical purchases.

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.

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.

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.

The little tiny company I work for plays by the same rules. We don't support any subscription payments through either of the app stores, only through our website.

Every couple months Apple will reject us over it, but it always escalates and we always get approved.

Google at least allows us to link to our own website, but if you use our iOS app, you have to figure it out on your own if you want to subscribe.

wait, what was Netflix able to do?

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.

audible - the audio book app also does not allow purchases in-app.

Fanhouse can just let purchases happen on web

if you read the twitter thread or the verge article you'll see this isn't true. fanhouse did disable in app purchases and force transactions via the web and apple threatened to pull their app unless they reenabled in app purchases

You mean Audible by Amazon.com, Inc.?

Yep that's correct.

Apple has always had clear exceptions for video, audio, magazine and newspaper apps.

"3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video). Reader apps may offer account creation for free tiers, and account management functionality for existing customers."

It isn't because Netflix or Amazon are "powerful" enough, but that they saw that these were traditional multiplatform services.

I disagree with the ridiculous Hey situation (and note that Apple backed down), however let's be accurate.

There are two ways to look at this:

1. Apple has strong convictions about what it is entitled to proceeds from and what it is not. It is a coincidence that the things it believes it is not entitled to proceeds from are things that the powerful companies produce; things people would leave the platform for rather than live without, like Netflix.

2. Apple is throwing its weight when it can and acquiesce when it can's. That's why exceptions are carved for the likes of Amazon and Netflix without specifically naming them.

Apple's rules, as I have mentioned elsewhere [1], are too convoluted for the first explanation to make sense, at least to me. I fully understand if that explanation makes sense to other people, but I am convinced it is a matter of power.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27452865

It's just a arbitrary rule comfortable for Apple.

Yes, of course it is. And it's self-serving. Apple saw that they needed to have these cross-platform services -- from big and small and medium sized creators and businesses -- and they carved out exemptions.

Hence, the phrase "gerrymandering" the boundaries.

This is another thread where anything contrary the mob is going to hit -4, but here I am because such things are a bit fun.

I replied to someone specifically claiming that Apple made an exception for the all powerful Netflix, but that Hey was too small to get the same exception -- it's just big v small. In actuality Apple has a "gerrymandered" broad set of categories that are exempt (whether you are a garage company or a multinational), otherwise you have to provide basic functionality in your app without such a subscription. Hey didn't fit in the categories, and they didn't provide the functionality.

I may disagree with Apple on this -- and there should be an App label denoting that external subscriptions are necessary -- however phrasing and truth actually matters.

Welcome to getting downvoted for posting relevant facts that contradict the group narrative.

There are a core group of extremely passionate anti-Apple folks who seem to go through every Apple thread and downvote anything that doesn't have torch in hand. It's pretty silly, but whatever.

I just saw one of these guys sincerely claim that Safari was "notoriously outdated and incompatible with the modern web". It is beyond parody.

There was a thread the other day that seriously argued that Apple promised the App Store was "completely secure" (which apparently extends out to guaranteeing the honesty, security and operational practices of every business if they happen to have an app on the App Store). I took multiple -4 downvote sprees for pointing out actual fact and reality, and felt good that I at least wasted a bit of their time.

It's boring and below HN, but it's the reality we live with.

This is true, but it's still an exception made for their specific situation. Email app Hey tried doing the same thing recently, and Apple rejected the update and refused to push further feature updates until they removed it. It's a double standard, no matter how you cut it.

They also drew a line between in app and non in app transactions.

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

Oh, I did not know all of that. I would agree those policies are ridiculous.

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.

See my other comment here about Netflix:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27453395

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.

> 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.

You can't pay Fanhouse on iOS, either.

I pay Netflix through my iPhone. I can manage the subscription along with my other iPhone app subscriptions.

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.

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".

You've explained how those two are different, but not why Apple is entitled to money from digital goods but not physical ones.

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.

The difference is that Uber and Doordash have a lot bargaining power

Products and services in the real world have marginal costs.

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

Because it's America and they can decide to charge whatever they want for their product?

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).

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).

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.

> 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".

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).

Or use the web.

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.

"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.

There is a lot of precedence that Apple is very reluctant to implement web-app standards, that could compete with the app store.

For some opinion pieces you can search for "Safari is the new Internet Explore"

Yeah, I saw the "Safari is the new Internet Explorer" argument. I, like many others, found it uproariously stupid. It betrays an authorship and readership that have literally no clue what the IE era was like. Just some sort of "IE bad" cudgel bit of pandering rhetoric.

It is whispering to a very specific audience.

And through all of this, the most remarkable thing is that Safari is hugely over represented among web visitors, both from iOS and Macs. It's almost like providing an extremely fast, light, energy efficient, feature rich browser encourages its use.

Has Apple added support for web apps yet? They were around for years now, that would be a prerequisite for switching to web.

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.

I build PWAs, there are main features I wish I could see on Safari/iOS.

1: Some kind of guarantee they're not going to randomly purge my assets/data to get some disk space back. I want to provide a good offline experience and not require a network connection. 2: Notifications, which has been requested for Safari every year for a decade. This is willful neglect and not esoteric new-in-chrome functionality or a security risk.

Apple did finally move WebRTC over from regular Safari to WebApp last year (Not every feature in mobile Safari is available as a WebApp). Finally! This opens up new potential. If they did the two above I'd be reasonably satisfied with the platform's capability.

I remember how Jobs was „attacked“ in an interview for not supporting adobe flash. They said it was because of his history with adobe, but jobs repeated all the time that HTML5 is going to be the future and adobe flash is old technology that has no future.

I understand the critique about their app store policy. But if you don‘t like their policy, don‘t build a „business“ depending on it. Or find a way around it. But stop crying in public and play the victim. Be creative, just like the people who invented the things our businesses rely on.

> 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.

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.

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?

Apple is a mega-monopoly that has captured 50% of Americans that use computers, and then installed taxation in front of all of it.

Businesses can't business anymore. It is beyond unhealthy for startups.

It's all a scam. All a ruse. And we're all victims.

Computing was never like this before Steve Jobs decided to ban literally everything and force people to live within his death star.

I can't believe how many folks within our industry are fine with this! You owe your career to free and open computing. As does Apple. They've just managed to gaslight us for so long that we're apologizing for the horrible things they do.

Break up Apple or allow people to install directly from the web. Don't let Apple enforce their payment rails.

They have enough goddamned money.

Wonderfully put.

I am guilty of helping perpetuating this situation by acquiescing and buying my wife/mother Apple gear.

I won't do this anymore.

She gets 10% if creators choose to use her service as opposed to the dozens of other similar services, some of which charge more and some of which charge less. Hence, there is no antitrust issue.

OTOH, App developers don't get a choice for iOS. They must use Apple's payment system. They don't have a variety of payment processors to choose from. There is no market determining whether 30% is fair, and that is why antitrust regulations may apply.

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?

That is how many B2B relationships actually work; you've described a referral arrangement in which one company refers a paying customer to another company and in exchange for their referral they get paid a percent of the revenue derived from it.

> OTOH, App developers don't get a choice for iOS.

The choice is to not use iOS. You’re argument is predicated on using iOS, which is a false equivalency.

you can make the same argument for netflix, amazon, or anything that involves any type of transaction, even your uber...

If she is using the app store payments, then fine. But if she is not using it, then that is a problem.

Yes, which is precisely what she should do.

> 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.

It does mean you shouldn't bet your business on winning that fight

Per definition the existence of the business depends on entering the fight.

If you engage with those actors accepting the terms that is exactly what it means.

...no.

You can't meaningfully accept terms when they are a requirement to enter the market.

If it's a requirement to enter the market, why wasn't it considered when developing the business model?

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?

It's not absurd. Have you never heard the term "contract of adhesion"?

And contracts aren't the same as laws and regulations, so throw that strawman out. Laws and regulations are enacted through a process designed to serve the greater good.

They are not required to accept them, OnlyFans is doing it just fine without Apple. They chose to be in Apple's platform. Voluntarily.

What market? The market of iOS users?

There are literally more users on Android - If I were in that position, I could just switch platforms.

If I'm a radio manufacturer, I can't cry foul that Lamborghini won't allow me to sell my radio in their cars by calling them a monopolist over the "market of Lamborghini drivers."

If I then decide to still make an exclusive Lamborghini radio, I own that responsibility for my failed business model.

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.

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