{"id":32806,"date":"2021-06-11T20:21:38","date_gmt":"2021-06-12T00:21:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=32806"},"modified":"2021-07-02T14:08:09","modified_gmt":"2021-07-02T18:08:09","slug":"fanhouse-vs-apple","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2021\/06\/11\/fanhouse-vs-apple\/","title":{"rendered":"Fanhouse vs. Apple"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jasmine<\/a> (via Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

I cofounded @fanhouseapp 8 months ago to empower creators to monetize their content. We pay creators 90% of earnings. Now, Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse from the app store unless we give them 30% of creator earnings.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

In writing and over the phone, we explained to Apple that we could pay them 30% of our revenues (from our 10% take rate). It’ll be harder to cover costs and build features as a startup, but at least it’d be coming from us. Apple insisted on taking 30% of creators’ total earnings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Apple<\/a>:<\/p>\n

If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

I don’t like this rule for many reasons, including that it makes certain business models, like selling e-books<\/a>, impossible because Apple’s 30% would mean losing money on each sale. And it doesn’t seem fair for the hardware platform vendor to get a larger cut than the site\/app\/content platform that connected the creator and fan and delivered the content.<\/p>\n\n

That said, reading the rule, it seems very clear, and I wondered why Funhouse would go to the effort of developing an app that tries to get away without using In-App Purchase when they’d only be forced to remove it.<\/p>\n\n

That is, I wondered until I saw that Fanhouse’s presumably largest competitor, Patreon, gets to do it.<\/p>\n\n

Jacob Kastrenakes<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n

\n

Apple allows Patreon to offer third-party payment solutions for creators rather than use in-app purchases, avoiding the fee. Other apps aren’t afforded that privilege. Apple and Patreon did not respond to a request for comment on the arrangement.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

I tried upgrading one of my subscriptions to a level that had entirely digital perks, and Patreon threw up its own payment form. I tried subscribing to a creator account and once again saw Patreon’s own form, not an in-app purchase dialog.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

I don’t understand the distinction between Patreon and other apps that sell content. But, whatever it is, Apple seems to have agreed last year when it approved Fanhouse that it fell into the same category. Now, it’s changing its mind about Fanhouse, but presumably not about Patreon, so it’s even less clear what the rules are<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n

Why do big corporations that can afford to pay get the biggest breaks?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

There’s also the famous rule created for WeChat:<\/p>\n\n

Apple<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

(vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Does the 100% mean they lose money on credit card transactions? And why can you give money to other users and buy them physical goods, or buy ads from the developer of an app, but you aren’t allowed to tip the developer of the app?<\/p>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n