Fanhouse protests Apple's 30% commission on payments to creators

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    Maybe Fanhouse should protest Twitch too? How about YouTube? Google ads? They all take a significantly larger precentage of "fan" income than 30%. Twitch charges 50% for most of their partners IIRC, some larger creators probably has a smaller cut, but new and for the largers portion of their creators, they take 100% (for non affiliates). YouTube Gaming and YouTube in general same thing, and Google ads take 80%+ of the actual ad spending and give only a small percentage back to the site owners. 
    williamlondonforegoneconclusion
  • Reply 22 of 39
    602warren said:
    While I am typically 100% in favor of Apples 30% cut, I see where Fanhouse is coming from on this one. For example if Epic sells me a token pack in game for $10, Apple gets $3 and Epic gets $7. Pretty straight forward. Epic made the token pack, sold me the token pack and keeps the money from its sale. But for Fanhouse, if I purchase a $10 private social page from someone inside the fanhouse app, Apple gets $3, Fanhouse gets $1 and the content creator gets $6. The content creator made what I’m buying, not Fanhouse. In essence, the content creator pays Apples 30% AND the Fanhouse 10% fee, when Fanhouse should be the one paying the 30% because its their app. Fanhouse is proposing $9 to the content creator, $0.30 to Apple and $0.70 to Fanhouse, which may be how the ebay and amazon apps work. When I sell on ebay I am using the ebay platform and have agreed to ebays fees, but I certainly dont see a variation in my pay out based on whether or not someone purchased the item via the web or app, I just see ebay take their standard cut.
    Apple doesn't charge Amazon or eBay anything, which is why you're seeing the same cut as normal there. Why? Because eBay and Amazon do not charge for digital goods using the Apple in-app purchase tools, which is the only thing Apple monetizes except for normal app purchases.
    williamlondon602warren
  • Reply 23 of 39
    kkqd1337kkqd1337 Posts: 349member
    the problem is the real world/offline version of fanhouse, (which is prostitution), is traditionally cash in hand and tax free. so it is quite an adjustment for those snowflakes. 
  • Reply 24 of 39
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,286member
    602warren said:
    While I am typically 100% in favor of Apples 30% cut, I see where Fanhouse is coming from on this one. For example if Epic sells me a token pack in game for $10, Apple gets $3 and Epic gets $7. Pretty straight forward. Epic made the token pack, sold me the token pack and keeps the money from its sale. But for Fanhouse, if I purchase a $10 private social page from someone inside the fanhouse app, Apple gets $3, Fanhouse gets $1 and the content creator gets $6. The content creator made what I’m buying, not Fanhouse. In essence, the content creator pays Apples 30% AND the Fanhouse 10% fee, when Fanhouse should be the one paying the 30% because its their app. Fanhouse is proposing $9 to the content creator, $0.30 to Apple and $0.70 to Fanhouse, which may be how the ebay and amazon apps work. When I sell on ebay I am using the ebay platform and have agreed to ebays fees, but I certainly dont see a variation in my pay out based on whether or not someone purchased the item via the web or app, I just see ebay take their standard cut.
    The same can be said for when I buy a Sony TV from Walmart or Costco or BestBuy, etc.. Sony made the TV I'm buying, why do I have to pay the retailers their mark up? 

    It's because retailers  provided a service and made it possible for me to buy and pay for a Sony TV. And Fanhouse provides a service that  makes it possible for consumers to buy and pay for works from content creators. Neither Fanhouse or their content creators are non profit charities. They are in it for the profits. Just like Apple.

    But lets be clear, Apple is not charging the content creators a 30% commission. Apple is charging Fanhouse the 30% commission. It's Fanhouse that is getting the money. Fanhouse then pay their content creators and takes a 10% cut for their services. Apple has no control on how much Fanhouse distributes to their content creators. 

    If they could, the content creators can create their own app and bypass Fanhouse. Plus they would most likely be only paying Apple a 15% commission, unless they can generate over $1M. And if they can (generate over $1M), then for sure they do not have any reasons to not create their own app. But many, if not most, can't create and manage their own apps, plus not being able to get the needed PR that Fanhouse might provide. So the extra % they have to pay might be worth it. For most content providers using Fanhouse, without Fanhouse and Apple, they might be looking a 0%, instead of 60%. 


    edited June 10 williamlondon
  • Reply 25 of 39
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,254member
    kkqd1337 said:
    the problem is the real world/offline version of fanhouse, (which is prostitution), is traditionally cash in hand and tax free. so it is quite an adjustment for those snowflakes. 
    Fanhouse is no-nudity, no-adult content.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 26 of 39
    Is this one of those platforms where porn got rebranded as “exclusive content”? I’m asking for a friend! 🤪
  • Reply 27 of 39
    30% is criminal.  Surprised they can get away with that.  Even eBay only takes about 12% of the sale which includes the payment processing fees.  And if you're a high-volume seller, its less.  30%????  That's like mafia protection money.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 28 of 39
    peteopeteo Posts: 393member
    mrd10 said:
    The people would have no platform without Apple. Period. You rely on Apple’s infrastructure and that is why they take 30%. You don’t like it? Get off. I’m so tired of these people stomping their feet and complaining like children. This is the reality. Accept it or move on. 
    I 100% agree. That's why whatever ISP the user is using to make this purchase should get 30% also. So at home it might be comcast, when on mobile then at&t etc.. Only makes sense since if the device can not get to the internet there is no way for them to access apples or anyone's  platform! Every time I buy something on the app store, iTunes, subscription etc ISP's should get a cut! Pay up APPLE!!!!!
    edited June 10 williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 39
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,254member
    mrd10 said:
    The people would have no platform without Apple. Period. You rely on Apple’s infrastructure and that is why they take 30%. You don’t like it? Get off. I’m so tired of these people stomping their feet and complaining like children. This is the reality. Accept it or move on. 
    That's crap, the web is a perfectly fine platform that other applications like this work fine on.  The only reliance on Apple's infrastructure is for the distribution of iOS apps, which may be worth 30% of revenue, but given that it's forced it's hardly a "reliance" and hard to properly evaluate its worth given that there's not practiceable alternative.  Some apps probably benefit a lot more than others.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 39
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,286member
    morebeer said:
    30% is criminal.  Surprised they can get away with that.  Even eBay only takes about 12% of the sale which includes the payment processing fees.  And if you're a high-volume seller, its less.  30%????  That's like mafia protection money.
    Not quite right. Missing a lot of detail that can vastly increase that ...... "about 12% of sale".   

    eBy charges an average of 12% of the total sale. It depends on the type of item sold.  But the total sale subject to the 12% includes the shipping and handling. So if an item sells for $10 plus $7 S&H. eBay collects on the average, 12% of $17. or $2.04. Which is about 20% of the $10 total sale that the seller gets to keep. The seller don't get to keep the $7 S&H charges. If the item sold for $10 with free shipping, then it's about 12% of $10. However, there is a max that eBay charges. It's $750. So if an item sells for $15,000, then the seller only pays eBay $750 or 5%.

    plus, eBay charges a fee even if an item don't sell. 

    And the seller still have to pay for payment processing fee. With PayPal, it's another 2.9%. When I pay for my eBay items with PayPal, it's paid to the seller. PayPal deduct their fees from what the seller receives in payment. If by CC, then the seller has to arrange it so they can accept CC charges. That's going to cost them more than 3%. 

    Here's a list of eBay charges and fees

    https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-to-know-about-ebay-and-paypal-fees-before-you-sell-1140371 ;  

    A high volume seller might be able to get away with paying 15% of total sales (not including the S&H) and only if they sell nearly every item they list and there are no returns. Otherwise, it's probably going to be closer to 20% of total sales (not including the S&H).   

    All of a sudden 30% don't sound too bad. Specially if the digital content one is selling, is dependent upon using the platform from which the sale is made and whose owner is paid the commission to help maintain that platform, so the customers can use the digital content they bought.  
  • Reply 31 of 39
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,627member
    I have no problem with Apple’s 30% cut on transactions that go through the AppStore. They deserve it.
    BUT
    From day one I’ve been uncomfortable with Apple getting 30% on transactions that do not go through the AppStore, just because once upon a time the App was downloaded through it. Apple does nothing, hosts nothing, handles nothing and yet they claim a third because an App once was downloaded from their system, a system that’s the only way to get an App on an Apple Device.  This has never set well with me. It’s the root of all of their legal troubles and antitrust allegations now. This has never passed the smell test for me.
    Apple deserves their cut when a sale goes through their servers, but they don’t deserve anything when it’s outside of their system. Payments to these creators don’t go anywhere near their system and Apple should keep their hands strictly off of them. 
    muthuk_vanalingamh2p
  • Reply 32 of 39
    williamhwilliamh Posts: 790member
    morebeer said:
    30% is criminal.  Surprised they can get away with that.  Even eBay only takes about 12% of the sale which includes the payment processing fees.  And if you're a high-volume seller, its less.  30%????  That's like mafia protection money.
    The mafia offers a deal that you can't refuse, if television is to be believed.  Apple offers a deal you can refuse.

    And who is to say the Farmhouse's 10% commission is fair?  The content creator sells whatever it is for $10,000 and only gets $9,000?  That $1,000 could be the difference between life and death.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 33 of 39
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,409member
    morebeer said:
    30% is criminal.  Surprised they can get away with that.  Even eBay only takes about 12% of the sale which includes the payment processing fees.  And if you're a high-volume seller, its less.  30%????  That's like mafia protection money.
    30% is standard. Everyone charges 30%, not just Apple. This isn't a payment processing fee, this is a fee to fund the two dozen services Apple gives to developers.

    And last time I checked, eBay takes a cut even if someone bids on your product and there is NO sale. THAT should be criminal. Do you agree? That's actually like protection money.
  • Reply 34 of 39
    davidw said:
    602warren said:
    While I am typically 100% in favor of Apples 30% cut, I see where Fanhouse is coming from on this one. For example if Epic sells me a token pack in game for $10, Apple gets $3 and Epic gets $7. Pretty straight forward. Epic made the token pack, sold me the token pack and keeps the money from its sale. But for Fanhouse, if I purchase a $10 private social page from someone inside the fanhouse app, Apple gets $3, Fanhouse gets $1 and the content creator gets $6. The content creator made what I’m buying, not Fanhouse. In essence, the content creator pays Apples 30% AND the Fanhouse 10% fee, when Fanhouse should be the one paying the 30% because its their app. Fanhouse is proposing $9 to the content creator, $0.30 to Apple and $0.70 to Fanhouse, which may be how the ebay and amazon apps work. When I sell on ebay I am using the ebay platform and have agreed to ebays fees, but I certainly dont see a variation in my pay out based on whether or not someone purchased the item via the web or app, I just see ebay take their standard cut.
    The same can be said for when I buy a Sony TV from Walmart or Costco or BestBuy, etc.. Sony made the TV I'm buying, why do I have to pay the retailers their mark up? 

    It's because retailers  provided a service and made it possible for me to buy and pay for a Sony TV. And Fanhouse provides a service that  makes it possible for consumers to buy and pay for works from content creators. Neither Fanhouse or their content creators are non profit charities. They are in it for the profits. Just like Apple.

    But lets be clear, Apple is not charging the content creators a 30% commission. Apple is charging Fanhouse the 30% commission. It's Fanhouse that is getting the money. Fanhouse then pay their content creators and takes a 10% cut for their services. Apple has no control on how much Fanhouse distributes to their content creators. 

    If they could, the content creators can create their own app and bypass Fanhouse. Plus they would most likely be only paying Apple a 15% commission, unless they can generate over $1M. And if they can (generate over $1M), then for sure they do not have any reasons to not create their own app. But many, if not most, can't create and manage their own apps, plus not being able to get the needed PR that Fanhouse might provide. So the extra % they have to pay might be worth it. For most content providers using Fanhouse, without Fanhouse and Apple, they might be looking a 0%, instead of 60%. 


    Does it matter whether Apple gets the 30% directly from the content creator or Fanhouse gives Apple the 30%? No, the content creator is still seeing that money go out of their pocket, but I see your point that Fanhouse is getting the money, then charging 10% on top of Apples 30%.

    The idea of buying a Sony TV at Walmart doesn't quite track. Sony sells the TV to Walmart at a fixed cost, so Sony has their money up front. How much of a markup Walmart chooses to charge the end consumer doesn't affect what's paid to Sony. If Walmart marks the TV up $100, then decides to put it on sale 6 weeks later for $150 off then Walmart loses the $50, not Sony. If Fanhouse paid creators up front for content that they then 'resold' to consumers, that would more closely mimic your TV analogy.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 35 of 39
    kmoberg said:
    602warren said:
    While I am typically 100% in favor of Apples 30% cut, I see where Fanhouse is coming from on this one. For example if Epic sells me a token pack in game for $10, Apple gets $3 and Epic gets $7. Pretty straight forward. Epic made the token pack, sold me the token pack and keeps the money from its sale. But for Fanhouse, if I purchase a $10 private social page from someone inside the fanhouse app, Apple gets $3, Fanhouse gets $1 and the content creator gets $6. The content creator made what I’m buying, not Fanhouse. In essence, the content creator pays Apples 30% AND the Fanhouse 10% fee, when Fanhouse should be the one paying the 30% because its their app. Fanhouse is proposing $9 to the content creator, $0.30 to Apple and $0.70 to Fanhouse, which may be how the ebay and amazon apps work. When I sell on ebay I am using the ebay platform and have agreed to ebays fees, but I certainly dont see a variation in my pay out based on whether or not someone purchased the item via the web or app, I just see ebay take their standard cut.
    Apple doesn't charge Amazon or eBay anything, which is why you're seeing the same cut as normal there. Why? Because eBay and Amazon do not charge for digital goods using the Apple in-app purchase tools, which is the only thing Apple monetizes except for normal app purchases.
    Ah. Thats the piece I'm missing - digital vs physical goods.

    I wonder if ebay would consider selling a PS5 digital game download code as a physical good or a digital one? I would assume physical since the game itself isn't coming from ebay? Or if someone decided to sell their very creative social media profile name on ebay instead of OG users (example @Mike on Twitter/Instagram) ...digital good or physical? The nuances of all of this are tricky but fun to discuss.
  • Reply 36 of 39
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,286member
    602warren said:
    davidw said:
    602warren said:
    While I am typically 100% in favor of Apples 30% cut, I see where Fanhouse is coming from on this one. For example if Epic sells me a token pack in game for $10, Apple gets $3 and Epic gets $7. Pretty straight forward. Epic made the token pack, sold me the token pack and keeps the money from its sale. But for Fanhouse, if I purchase a $10 private social page from someone inside the fanhouse app, Apple gets $3, Fanhouse gets $1 and the content creator gets $6. The content creator made what I’m buying, not Fanhouse. In essence, the content creator pays Apples 30% AND the Fanhouse 10% fee, when Fanhouse should be the one paying the 30% because its their app. Fanhouse is proposing $9 to the content creator, $0.30 to Apple and $0.70 to Fanhouse, which may be how the ebay and amazon apps work. When I sell on ebay I am using the ebay platform and have agreed to ebays fees, but I certainly dont see a variation in my pay out based on whether or not someone purchased the item via the web or app, I just see ebay take their standard cut.
    The same can be said for when I buy a Sony TV from Walmart or Costco or BestBuy, etc.. Sony made the TV I'm buying, why do I have to pay the retailers their mark up? 

    It's because retailers  provided a service and made it possible for me to buy and pay for a Sony TV. And Fanhouse provides a service that  makes it possible for consumers to buy and pay for works from content creators. Neither Fanhouse or their content creators are non profit charities. They are in it for the profits. Just like Apple.

    But lets be clear, Apple is not charging the content creators a 30% commission. Apple is charging Fanhouse the 30% commission. It's Fanhouse that is getting the money. Fanhouse then pay their content creators and takes a 10% cut for their services. Apple has no control on how much Fanhouse distributes to their content creators. 

    If they could, the content creators can create their own app and bypass Fanhouse. Plus they would most likely be only paying Apple a 15% commission, unless they can generate over $1M. And if they can (generate over $1M), then for sure they do not have any reasons to not create their own app. But many, if not most, can't create and manage their own apps, plus not being able to get the needed PR that Fanhouse might provide. So the extra % they have to pay might be worth it. For most content providers using Fanhouse, without Fanhouse and Apple, they might be looking a 0%, instead of 60%. 


    Does it matter whether Apple gets the 30% directly from the content creator or Fanhouse gives Apple the 30%? No, the content creator is still seeing that money go out of their pocket, but I see your point that Fanhouse is getting the money, then charging 10% on top of Apples 30%.

    The idea of buying a Sony TV at Walmart doesn't quite track. Sony sells the TV to Walmart at a fixed cost, so Sony has their money up front. How much of a markup Walmart chooses to charge the end consumer doesn't affect what's paid to Sony. If Walmart marks the TV up $100, then decides to put it on sale 6 weeks later for $150 off then Walmart loses the $50, not Sony. If Fanhouse paid creators up front for content that they then 'resold' to consumers, that would more closely mimic your TV analogy.
    The point is that Sony can not tell the retailers to sell the TV at the same price to consumers but lower their mark up and then demand that they pay Sony the difference between their usual mark up and the lower one. If Sony wants more money for their TV's then they should charge the retailer more at wholesale, not tell the retailer to lower their mark up but sell the TV to consumers for the same price and give Sony the difference.

    If the content creators wants more for their work, then they should charge customers more for their work. Not request that Apple or Fanhouse lower their commissions so they can make more money, at their cost. The cost to sell in the App Store and Fanhouse take, was known before they set their price. 

    When you think about it, in a digital world, the content creator is the one with the least overhead. It cost them next to nothing to try to sell at a lower price, with the hope of increasing sales to make up for it.  It's often better to have a smaller piece of a larger pie, than the lion share of a smaller pie. 40% of $20K in sales, is much better than 60% of $10K in sales.    
    kurai_kage
  • Reply 37 of 39
    h2ph2p Posts: 308member
    DAalseth said:
    I have no problem with Apple’s 30% cut on transactions that go through the AppStore. They deserve it.
    BUT...
    Apple deserves their cut when a sale goes through their servers, but they don’t deserve anything when it’s outside of their system. Payments to these creators don’t go anywhere near their system and Apple should keep their hands strictly off of them. 
    I'm agree 100%

    I'm thinking the end result of the legal actions could be a sweeping 15% for all but the initial app sale.

    Also, I'm steadfastly in favor of the 30% cut on AppStore transactions as you mention and agree that Apple should keep their hand off outside sales... But, doesn't Apple require you to use their payment system in-app? Thru the developer website - zero commission, yes?
    williamlondon
  • Reply 38 of 39
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,409member
    h2p said:
    DAalseth said:
    I have no problem with Apple’s 30% cut on transactions that go through the AppStore. They deserve it.
    BUT...
    Apple deserves their cut when a sale goes through their servers, but they don’t deserve anything when it’s outside of their system. Payments to these creators don’t go anywhere near their system and Apple should keep their hands strictly off of them. 
    I'm agree 100%

    I'm thinking the end result of the legal actions could be a sweeping 15% for all but the initial app sale.

    Also, I'm steadfastly in favor of the 30% cut on AppStore transactions as you mention and agree that Apple should keep their hand off outside sales... But, doesn't Apple require you to use their payment system in-app? Thru the developer website - zero commission, yes?
    Perhaps you know this, but many people don't....

    Apple has never charged a dime for web-based apps currently called PWA apps. These are apps that you download by visiting a website using a browser, and Apple has no problem at all if users get charged a fee within those apps. This was even encouraged by Apple when the iPhone was first released prior to their being an App Store. It's still a perfectly valid way to get apps (and get paid for them) and is growing in popularity. Twitter uses a PWA and discontinued their non-PWA website last year. Starbucks doubled their online orders when they switched to PWA. They pay Apple nothing for these apps.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_application

    If you want your "app" to be in the "App Store", then you have to decide if you want the app to cost money (from which Apple will take a 15% or 30% cut) or if you want to make your money through a subscription process (or both, but that's redundant and greedy.) Apple will take a cut of your subscription if you include a button in your app to pay for the subscription through your app. However you can get your user to pay outside the app, in which case Apple takes no cut, but if you do that then you have to choose one of the following options:
    1. You either include an optional way for the user to pay within the app, which will give Apple a 15% or 30% cut; or
    2. You do not mention anywhere in your app that the user can pay for your services outside your app.
    If you can't agree to either of these two conditions, your app violates the App Store Guidelines.

    I'm trying to develop sympathy for both the developer and for Apple regarding option #1 above. It's a tough call. Apple says it wants to give the user a choice of payments, and developers are objecting to that choice, because some of their users will choose the option to pay through Apple, resulting in a 15% or 30% cut (usually 15%.) Let's assume that under Apple's option #1, half the users choose to pay using Apple's method. That means the developer is paying 7.5% on average to Apple for its subscriptions after the first year. And developers are still complaining about 7.5%? Would they still be complaining if Apple's cut was only 4%? 

    I'm actually paying for several services that I would NEVER have paid for if I had to pay the developer by going through their website. These companies are BENEFITTING from Apple's purchasing options, not losing 15% to 30% from me. They're gaining 70% to 85% from me. I would never have been one of their customers if it wasn't for Apple. And if the courts or the government say that Apple can't charge 15% or 30%, then I will cancel my subscriptions. These vendors will lose my money if Apple can't charge a cut.

    If I am wrong on anything, please explain why. I want to be corrected if I'm wrong. Who doesn't?
    h2p
  • Reply 39 of 39

    If you want your "app" to be in the "App Store", then you have to decide if you want the app to cost money (from which Apple will take a 15% or 30% cut) or if you want to make your money through a subscription process (or both, but that's redundant and greedy.) Apple will take a cut of your subscription if you include a button in your app to pay for the subscription through your app. However you can get your user to pay outside the app, in which case Apple takes no cut, but if you do that then you have to choose one of the following options:
    1. You either include an optional way for the user to pay within the app, which will give Apple a 15% or 30% cut; or
    2. You do not mention anywhere in your app that the user can pay for your services outside your app.
    If you can't agree to either of these two conditions, your app violates the App Store Guidelines.

    If I am wrong on anything, please explain why. I want to be corrected if I'm wrong. Who doesn't?
    Option 1 is pretty close, and I'm sure devs would be fine if these were actually the two options. Option 1 is actually NOT optional -- Apple forces you to let people pay within the app.

    The problem seems to be that if you let people buy things outside of the app that they can access in the app (eg a subscription or Fortnite VBucks), Apple forces you to let people buy them in the app as well (and pay the 15/30%).

    SO if you sell VBucks outside of the app, you HAVE to sell VBucks in the app, using in-app-purchase and Apple gets their cut! Only streaming services are allowed to not offer IAP. Other developers are actually FORCED to use IAP and pay the 15/30% if they let users purchase those same things outside the app, AND they are not allowed to tell people that they can buy outside the app. 

    If they weren't forced to let people buy stuff in the app with IAP, then that probably make a ton of devs happy. Similarly, if devs HAD to offer IAP but could tell people it's cheaper elsewhere, that would probably work too. 
    williamlondonh2p
Sign In or Register to comment.