FB whining about a lack of transparency on matters that affect users is about as Trumpian a move as I could imagine from them, and that's saying something.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
FB sucks, but they're doing the exact opposite of that Apple doesn't want them to do in their complaint.Good guy Facebook trying to fight for the small guy and against that evil 30% cut and getting all that positive PR spin. Also Facebook:
I think there's way too much focus on the companies involved, and very little about the actual issues at hand. Apple and Facebook both suck in their own different ways, but I'm not sure how much that's material to the issue at hand.
Like, I think the world would be better off if Facebook didn't exist, but nonetheless, it's bullshit that Apple's policy isn't just to get a 30% cut (a policy I'm fine with), but also that Facebook can't tell users about that 30% when doing a price breakdown because Apple thinks it's "irrelevant."
It's really childish, stupid, and redundant to come into a thread with some sarcastic "thanks heroic Facebook!" when that's not even the tenor of the conversation. We all know Facebook sucks. What is that adding to the discussion?
Like, I think the world would be better off if Facebook didn't exist, but nonetheless, it's bullshit that Apple's policy isn't just to get a 30% cut (a policy I'm fine with), but also that Facebook can't tell users about that 30% when doing a price breakdown because Apple thinks it's "irrelevant."
It's really childish, stupid, and redundant to come into a thread with some sarcastic "thanks heroic Facebook!" when that's not even the tenor of the conversation. We all know Facebook sucks. What is that adding to the discussion?
Facebook runs the most important social network platform and gives its marketplace favorable positioning and has a long history of using everyone's data competitor or not to give themselves an advantage.
I don't think either are anticompetitive. I think some companies don't like the deal for using Apple's shit. But I'll trust the corporate lawyers on this one:
A "manufacturer's own products do not themselves comprise a relevant product market" and a "company does not violate the Sherman Act by virtue of the natural monopoly it holds over its own product." Psystar, 586 F. Supp. 2d at 1197-98 (quoting Green Country Food Market, Inc. v. Bottling Group, 371 F.3d 1275, 1282 (10th Cir. 2004)). Courts routinely "'reject the argument that a single branded product constitutes a relevant market.'"
They're not a monopoly nor anticompetitive. They're just unwilling to alter terms for the most part.
Yeah, there's only one company actually putting their money where their mouth is on this issue
And it's Epic Games.
As someone who's owned dozens of Apple products over the last decade, I'm going to side with the other guys. Selfishly, I want them to be taken down so maybe apps like Game Pass and Stadia can come to iOS.
LMAO. Is that unnamed "corporate lawyer" Microsoft's from its early 2000 anti trust case? Because he or she is making the same argument.
The point is that they tell their sellers this. Apple won't allow it.
Good guy Facebook trying to fight for the small guy and against that evil 30% cut and getting all that positive PR spin. Also Facebook:
The OP isn't just about charging the 30%, but Apple not letting Facebook tell users that Apple is taking 30%.
Apple requires all apps with in-app purchases to use iTunes Connect (their payment system) for it
BwahahahaGood guy Facebook trying to fight for the small guy and against that evil 30% cut and getting all that positive PR spin. Also Facebook:
Honestly for all the talk of Apple wanting to be a concerned citizen and the greater good for humanity, they should just launch their own Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/WhatsApp competitors. Focus on privacy and user security, go after these other companies Customers. Hell, be a viable alternative for 10% of their users and you are doing the world a service.
You realize their issues is not being able to tell customers, not the fact Apple is taking a cut, so the picture isn't really relevant at all
The screenshot I'm seeing for Facebook is for developers not users? Apple tells the developers also about 30%.
This reminds me of that scene from Samurai Jack, with the robo-cannibal family who devour each other after discovering that they themselves are also robots.
Let these corps eat each other.
Let these corps eat each other.
Afaik you're not allowed to show the cut that Facebook either. For example you have to mark a price as $9.99 and it's not allowed to show it as "$7.99 + $2 transfer fee" on the invoice or in your online store. The same is true for pretty much every 3rd party payment method provider in the world like Paypal, Paysafecard, Klarna and so on. You're usually not allowed to show or add the transaction fee later as a separate amount.
It's good that someone challenges the current system. But you shoudln't try to dogpile someone while you're beeing a part of the problem on your own.
Everyone keeps talking about how it's the same everywhere and that it's the standard, yet do people actually realize it's not the same here? Apple is taking 30% on iOS while Google and Facebook are taking 0% on Android. So it's not the same like people keep trying to use as a defense.
arstechnica.com
This is what I was getting at earlier in a previous post where Apple charges 30% on things that Google, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc do not charge 30% for so saying that these practices are an industry wide standard and everyone is doing it is just flat out wrong. Apple is doing something different here and I don't think we should be cheering to defend Apple here no matter how shitty Facebook is.
If we want to use the defense that everyone does it then maybe Apple should do the thing that everyone else does.
Apple wonāt let Facebook tell users about 30-percent Apple tax on events
Facebook says āsmall businesses will keep 100% of the revenueā on Android.
arstechnica.com
This is what I was getting at earlier in a previous post where Apple charges 30% on things that Google, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc do not charge 30% for so saying that these practices are an industry wide standard and everyone is doing it is just flat out wrong. Apple is doing something different here and I don't think we should be cheering to defend Apple here no matter how shitty Facebook is.
If we want to use the defense that everyone does it then maybe Apple should do the thing that everyone else does.
When Epic allows developers to offer their own payment methods in EGS without getting any money we could then say that they put their money Where their mouth is.
Facebook is just mad as hell Apple is going to let users block their tracking garbage and is trying to take what jabs they think they can get away with at Apple.
Err...the point is that Apple is not allowing Facebook to tell the audience that Apple is taking the 30% fee. Facebook is not against the fee, they just want to be allowed to tell people that there is a fee via the app.Good guy Facebook trying to fight for the small guy and against that evil 30% cut and getting all that positive PR spin. Also Facebook:
Yeah, in this case, Apple are definitely alone.Everyone keeps talking about how it's the same everywhere and that it's the standard, yet do people actually realize it's not the same here? Apple is taking 30% on iOS while Google and Facebook are taking 0% on Android. So it's not the same like people keep trying to use as a defense.
Apple wonāt let Facebook tell users about 30-percent Apple tax on events
Facebook says āsmall businesses will keep 100% of the revenueā on Android.
This is what I was getting at earlier in a previous post where Apple charges 30% on things that Google, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc do not charge 30% for so saying that these practices are an industry wide standard and everyone is doing it is just flat out wrong. Apple is doing something different here and I don't think we should be cheering to defend Apple here no matter how shitty Facebook is.
If we want to use the defense that everyone does it then maybe Apple should do the thing that everyone else does.
That public battle about showing Apple's cut is the tip of the iceberg, in that they're taking a cut when everyone else are waiving their fees.
If anything, I don't think the comparisons to Epic are helpful. I could give two shits that Epic has to leave 30 cents on the table for every dollar they make, whereas they're the odd man out in monetizing an initiative that's supposed to help SMBs recover.
This can be read as: they want to focus all the negative PR upon Apple after Apple's iOS 14 brings negative PR upon them due to... y'know, all the data farming.
Too many corporate slap-fights now and I think we, as consumers, shouldn't get involved, because that's clearly what they WANT us to do.
What exactly are you siding for? Apple's stance that Facebook should not be allowed to tell anyone that Apple takes 30%?
This policy of Apple's is bigger than just Facebook though. Here's an example.
Let's say a developer has a chat app, and they were doing a charity funderaiser by offering a special sticker in that app when you pay for it. All proceeds would go to charity. Apple would take 30% of that donation since you're paying for digital content and the developer would not be able to disclose that 30% of your donation is not going to the charity.
Why would we want Apple to take 30% of that and not have the person donating be able to be informed that 30% of their donation is not going to charity?
Nope. That as a corporate entity that exists I'd rather Apple existed with all their shit than Facebook existed with all their shit.
Facebook is demonstrably a more devastating bad actor on society than Apple. I could care less about the app store cut Apple gets when Facebook is devastating democracy.
An interesting hypothetical, and as a web developer I'd make a website which wasn't tied into either corporations walled garden?
But your chat app runs on iOS because it's a chat app and a good place for chatting is on a mobile device. Your solution is to simply removed from iOS devices which makes up 40% of the US market?
Even then, why do we want Apple to be able to do that in that scenario?
It's almost like alternatives exist but they're not appealing because they may not reach as many users on the desired platform!
"My chat app runs on iOS because it's a chat app" is a nonsense argument. A chat app can run on anything. Discord runs in web browsers.
It's faulty thinking on the part of some developers that their apps are necessarily tied to platforms.
Considering the app is targeted at business I think it doesn't make a ton of sense to ban the app. For consumers it makes sense, but a business would probably want to know that information.
Unless it cost money to use (which means no one would use it) then it'd probably have to violate your privacy in order to be profitable. Plus Facebook already has a functional monopoly on social media so Apple's investors would probably be pissed to hear they're dumping millions into a doomed to fail Facebook competitor.
They'd have to make it cross-platform for it to be useful outside places where iOS has 50%+ marketshare, and Apple don't have a great track record in that regard. Music's available on non-Apple devices, but I think that's about it.
I mean, kinda? America's tipping culture exists to give restaurants a legal and cultural out for not paying their wait staff a livable wage. It's pretty fucked up.
So what you're saying is native apps are pointless and we should all be using webapps instead, right?
Plus you're sidestepping why we want to defend Apple's ability to do this to begin with? Why would we want them to have the ability to take 30% from a charity fundraiser and not tell the person donating where there money is going? What's the benefit here to the consumer? What's the downside from allowing this to happen for the consumer?
Any other platform that charges for micro transactions would be the same. If you set up a payment option with PayPal there would be a cut and the giver isn't told. If you pay with Visa or MasterCard, same deal. If you've given money to a GoFundMe, same thing.
Are there policies that explicitly prohibit an app to disclose that a percentage of your money is going towards fees though if you use those services? Apple is actively denying the ability to disclose those fees. Kickstarters for example can explicitly point out what percent of your donation is going to Kickstarter. Let's also not ignore that the percentage difference for PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, and GoFundMe are massively smaller compared to 30% for Apple. I think someone donating cares a bit less about 1 or 2% not going to a cause while near 1/3rd of your donation isn't.
I'm pretty sure charitable donations are exempt from the Apple payment processing requirement.
Not at all. I love native apps! I actually kind of dislike Electron apps and their ilk so please don't put words in my mouth.
All I'm saying is if you base your business on another companies artificial market, then you play by their rules. Be that YouTube, Twitch, Mixer, Apple, Google, or whatever. It's your choice where you make your money and you abide by their rules. That's on you and your choice. You knew what you were getting into.
Think yourself lucky that unlike Mixer that market didn't get removed. So far.
But can you sell a digital good with the funds for that digital good going to charity? Or is that strictly just a charity donation?
Just because there are rules doesn't mean those rules shouldn't be challenged and pressure to be put on to change them when the net result can be a benefit to the consumer. I'm on the side that pressure should be made to change these policies because it would be better for consumers and small businesses.
Fair enough. And in my business I advise my customers to never rely on social media or the charlatans who tell them social media will lead them to success. Each to their own.
Sure, screw Facebook, but this really isn't about Facebook in my opinion; this is about Apple's policies and Facebook is one of the few companies who has the clout to actually challenge those policies against Apple. So while I'm all for shitting on Facebook, that doesn't change the fact that what they are challenging I believe should change because it will have a wider impact that benefits people well beyond Facebook. To want to side with Apple on this because Facebook is involved would be like you going against a smaller business who has the same issue and is pushing back against the same policy only because Facebook would benefit from such a policy change too.