Twitter previews Ticketed Spaces
theverge.com
theverge.com
https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/1395766118304780292
> A creator sells a Ticketed Space for $5. The creator, who people are willing to pay for, gets $2.80. Twitter, who facilitated the connection and created the product, gets $0.70. Apple/Google, who leverage OS API control into a tax on all activity, do nothing and get $1.50.
> Imagine people arguing in 1998 that Microsoft deserves 30% of all software sales with zero alternatives allowed lmao
No curated/moderated/policed App Store?
No storage/distribution network for applications?
No vetted and trusted secure authentication and payment systems?
No meticulously-created hardware in the first place?
Yep, that sounds about right. They're just "doing nothing" and don't deserve to be able to run their businesses while other people build on top of their platforms.
But overall, I'm surprised how common the take is in the software industry that this is a fine state of things. How much of Apple's cut is because they run a good distribution network, vs. how much is because they are the only distribution channel?
Surely we don't think it's a bad thing that desktop software went in the direction of being an open platform (which, it's worth noting, may not have gone in that direction without DOJ intervention). Why aren't we rooting for the same on mobile devices, which have become just as essential?
> I don’t want an open platform.
Do you think the state of the world would be better if desktops were not open platforms? I'm genuinely curious because this is something I just can't relate to.
The way it is now is very straightforward. If you want an app, you know where to get it. You know who’s vetted it. You know who’s handling your payment info. You (now) know what information about you is being gathered and disseminated.
Can you imagine how terrible a world where every App thinks it needs its own store would be?
Having a uniform way to handle payments is a great feature, but it would happen naturally if payment terms were competitive with industry norms instead of extractive prices that require a lock on distribution.
For those that answer "yes, actually" the option for them to be able to use the walled garden would still be there - allowing others the option does not take that away from those that are actually choosing the walled garden vs being required to use it after getting the phone for other reasons.
Microsoft didn't build those computers.
Microsoft didn't sell those computers.
Microsoft didn't ship those computers.
They merely licensed their OS to the manufacturers and/or end users.
The X Box would be a better analogy, and MS does get a 30% cut there.
Didn't they? QDOS was bought, but 9x and NT were mostly MS with a little bit of IBM AFAIK.
Ever heard of CP/M? That was an improvement over having every manufacturer ship it's own (unmaintained) OS. Microsoft's genius was seeing the value in Software, not just in shipping physical goods. And people believed they were crazy at the time.
Yes, Apple builds excellent hardware, and deserves to be rewarded for it. They are rewarded when I give them money for their products. They shouldn't have a say in what I do with the product after I receive it. Imagine buying a new Ford or Nissan and the dealership sets which highways you're allowed to drive on!
BlackBerry, Nokia, they all failed to create an app ecosystem.
"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
It is a lot like all the furor over patent trolls. It only really hurts large companies, but techies decided it was somehow victimizing them and screamed about it constantly but consumers still didnt care.
I would support this, as I believe that we pay high taxes because we're pacified into not thinking about the amount.
In reality you could sell your software by direct mail if you thought it was a better cost structure than a store, or if a store didn’t want to carry your product.
IIRC, that's exactly how some famous companies/developers (Apogee, for one) started out. They uploaded the demo to BBSes and then had interested users buy the full product by mail.
From what I understand places like Amazon don't get charged for in app purchases, but Audible (owned by Amazon) would & so they don't offer buying books.
I assume finance stock/crypto/etc apps don't get charged.
I've heard that food & drink, taxi services, & house rentals don't get charged.
-- I could be mistaken about many of these above.
Except they offer you a channel for distribution, discoverability, promotion, rating and monetization of your app.
On Android you don't have to serve your app over Google Play you can distribute .apk file elsewhere and pay 0% fee but on iOS unfortunately you can not do that.
Only because they don't allow you to do any of that yourself or allow for any alternatives.
The modern web has pretty good audio support these days.
Of course they can build PWA's to try to keep more of the money but Apple will eventually find a way to capture that money. Apple controls the only browser engine on IOS and I don't expect them to investing in features that threaten the Apple tax.
If PWAs become popular enough then Apple will add a browser feature redirects/proxies payments through Apple and they'll take their 30% cut.
Nothing is preventing creators from setting up their own infrastructure and building their own platform and then taking all the profit. They don’t, thus they must believe that what both Twitter and Apple and Google are delivering is valuable and with the cost.
If we continue to trend in this direction, Apple and Google will own 30% of all commerce in America. It's not okay, and it isn't legal. The DOJ hasn't been focused enough to shut them down.
The simple fix is to disallow app stores and "pay with Apple/Google". But if if it requires that the companies are broken into pieces, so be it.
If you're running a startup today, how on earth do you rationalize competing with these absurd giants? They're eating our lunch, and the only reason they can do so is monopoly power.
I realize that Apple and Google employees and stockholders may have different views, but this isn't an equitable or healthy market.
If its the former, you find ways of not “feeding the beast” to serve your growing share. Airbnb turned off Google ads. Snap built Spectacles. Facebook built Portal. Spotify built Car Thing.
If its the later, you bite the bullet and chalk it up to business expenses. You appreciate the wonderful world you do business and grow by innovating on top of the platform ie) more apps, more app features, etc. This is the path of Twitter. Or you can choose to be bitter, which is the path of Epic, Match group, etc. In the end these are the losers, IMO
Apple built their business on the capitalist platform of this country. If the other businesses and people in this country decide that Apple is doing wrong then we will basically flip that right on its lid.
It's up to the courts now. Apple is getting attacked from many different angles and they'll definitely lose some degree of control eventually.
The point is that if Apple chooses to do business in our country, they'll follow our rules. Nobody is forever in debt to Apple for starting an app store. The fight can continue infinitely since we can change the rules as we see fit to.
And what happens when "the platform" demands 95% of the revenue? Just go to one of the hundreds of competing platforms? You can debate the empirics of a particular market intervention, but your statement makes sense only in a world of perfectly competitive platforms.
From a developer standpoint, they simply decide to start a business or not, knowing the expenses of doing so. Whether you are a new company, or any existing one like Twitter, you can do the math. Look at the costs and ROI. It is worth noting the platform fees have never gone up, only down.
You have no choice but to build on the illegal monopoly that is Apple. At least not until the DOJ breaks the company up for abusing our industry.
Chip foundries need to start locking hardware if they don't start getting subscription revenue. (Isn't that a dumb idea?)
Or maybe ISPs should do deep packet inspection and make you pay more for Apple traffic. This is what Apple and Google have done to freedom of computing!
Qualcomm charges pretty hefty licensing fees for Apple to use its modem technology. And they scale it based on the price of the phone, not a fixed amount, just like the App Store does.
We act like there is something so wrong here but its just business. Everyone needs to take a chill pill
I’m curious what loopholes exist for this - if you charge for coupons on your own site and a hosted space required a coupon but was otherwise not possible to use, would you still have to pay Apple?
Hopefully this is more fuel for the rage machine that will shut this racket down.
Device manufacturers should not be allowed to do the following:
1. run monopoly marketplaces on their devices
2. run any payments gateways on their devices
If Apple Pay and Google Pay continue to be a thing, the DOJ needs to force the companies to be broken up into distinct business units. Let these organizations compete with Visa, PayPal, and the like on equal footing.
I'm not actually sure what exactly your point is, so I'm not arguing for or against it. I just thought the chain could be extended some.
The electric company should get a 50% cut.
UPS, FedEx, and DHL should get a 72% cut.
...
Oh my god, this is fucking stupid.
In this entire chain, the only innovation and service being provided is by the app creator. All the dues to the other companies are already paid. The fucking OS vendor has nothing to do with anything other than enforcing their draconian bloodsucking rules.
And you can't even collect the payments yourself, even if you wanted to. And you can't tell users why payments are more expensive (not even through email or any web pages reachable through the app - Hey got kicked out for this). AND AND - this is truly outrageous mafia-like behavior - you can't sell your services for less outside of the App Store. That's right, if your monthly photo backup service is $9.99/mo on the App Store, you have to sell it for $9.99 on your web site, even if you want to sell it for $6.99/mo. And if you do sell it for $6.99 in your app, you have to accept the fact that 30% of your profits are just pissed away even before taxes.
An entire subset of online businesses aren't even financially possible because the 30% Apple cut and forced pricing model would eat up profit margins that would be healthy otherwise. I would happily sell a service for $9.99 in app and $6.99 on web, and give the user a choice, but of course I can't, because the App Store is a racket.
>An entire subset of online businesses aren't even financially possible because the 30% Apple cut and forced pricing model would eat up profit margins that would be healthy otherwise. I would happily sell a service for $9.99 in app and $6.99 on web, and give the user a choice, but of course I can't, because the App Store is a racket.
Er, I do remember this being the case a long while ago but it seems to have been fixed in 2011? https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_...
"Apple this week revised its rules for in-app subscriptions, and no longer requires that subscriptions purchased outside of an iOS application have the same price or less."
And I don't see anything in the current guidelines that would contradict that - did it come back sometime in the last ten years?
(Definitely not a fan of the other guidelines like not being allowed to even hint to your users that they can subscribe on your website or disclose the Apple cut)
What is strange is the people working on such products, when speaking in public, always talk about innovation, creativity and freedom. Adjectives that are directly at odds with the strategic direction of their products.
The company is partnering with Stripe to handle payments, and it says users will receive 80 percent of revenue after Apple and Google’s in-app purchase fees are taken.
I'm partly surprised that people have not done something like sell postcards of QR codes linking to their digital product or something in lieu of selling digital items directly, just to point out the absurdity of it all.
I have been a bit skeptical about the whole Clubhouse craze, but this does seem like a reasonable starting point to build a business model around live chat.
> this does seem like a reasonable starting point to build a business model around live chat.
Discord is doing something similar with their stage channels[0], including paid tickets etc. It makes a lot of sense since their whole business model is around text and audio/video chat already.
[0] https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500005513722-...
And actually, while I'm here - why don't the ARPANET guys take more? Because it makes everyone better off if they don't.
>The company is partnering with Stripe to handle payments, and it says users will receive 80 percent of revenue after Apple and Google’s in-app purchase fees are taken
if Stripe take payments, how do Apple/Google get involed at all?!
But... why on earth is Twitter picking this fight. Have they done it accidentally? They're not at a scale for this to pay off for them, and other companies are already doing the heavy lifting. This is a fight Twitter doesn't need.
Sadly every single top-level comment is about the IAP fees, a tired and unproductive line of discussion.
Why go with Stripe when their CEO is also the CEO of Square? Avoiding self dealing or lost on the merits?
100% - $10 // 30% - $3 to Apple // 20% of 7 - $1.7 to Twitter (+inclusive of stripe fees) // 80% of 7 - $5.6 to host //
Apple and Google makes more money than the product itself. haha
Perhaps this exemption only applies when 100% of the proceeds go to the creator (as is the case with Twitter's Super Follow)
Before taxes. I'd be very surprised if the host gets even $4 afterwards.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/07/uber-sells-self-driving-un...
I don’t fully understand the value proposition of Ticketed Spaces, although to be honest I understand the value proposition of social media - it seems to be voyeurism and exhibitionism with folks pretending to have a lifestyle that’s not sustainable or real in the first place.
I cancelled my Prime membership because as a paying Prime member, I don’t think my search results should be plastered with ads. I already paid you for a premium experience. Don’t insult me with cheap Chinese flea market garbage.
We’ve been here before, with cable TV. And before that, with newspapers and magazines.
Apple and Google are unreasonable monopolies, and they shouldn't have total platform control.