Hacker News Reader

Comment by cromwellian | Hacker News Reader

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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

You mean Audible by Amazon.com, Inc.?

Yep that's correct.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com