Elon Musk Wants Apple to Lower Fees for 'X' Creators

[AgeOfSpiracles]

😳

Well I do have to hand it to you since I’ve never seen that before and I’ve been a Ford guy my whole life, what the heck do those clear handcuff things do anyways?

I think the idea was to solve the hand-over-hand problem that yokes have without super-variable steering rates (like the new Lexus system about to come out). You'd hold on to the clear circles, which spin, and you crank the yoke around and around. Pretty much like those trucker steering wheel knobs.

Ford's “Wrist-Twist” Steering Tried a Tesla Model S–Style Yoke in 1965 - AutoMotoBuzz.com

Believe it or not, the 2022 Tesla Model S Plaid‘s new steering yoke isn’t the first time an automaker tried

automotobuzz.com

 

[splifingate]

Ah yes, The BlindspotX Truck. Such disruptor. The difference to their older cars is that it isn’t plastic.

Tesla has made one thing (electrical cars) mainstream, and made one thing recognisable, yet even white headphones with an apple logo became more popular faster.

Tesla is falling behind in automotive.

I'm not a particular fan of Elon, but to say that Tesla is 'falling behind in automotive' and has 'nothing on their roadmap that would have mass appeal' is a stretch.

Q1-2023 sales of the Model Y gained #1 ranking amidst all cars sold, Worldwide.

The Tesla Model Y is now the world’s bestselling car

The first-ever electric vehicle to have reached the top spot.

www.theverge.com

Even though--as a Company--Tesla is not in the top-10, that's quite an accomplishment!

They haven’t innovated since their first car, and have nothing on their roadmap that would have mass appeal.

I'm holding-tight to my '11 Honda Fit and '98 Ford F-150

 

[kingtj1971]

“This band was cool before everyone else caught on.”

That’s your argument. Doesn’t strike me as especially compelling. If you wanted an enduring luxury vehicle you should have looked at an Audi.

That was one piece of the argument -- not the entire one. It's a factor. Why would anyone have paid Tesla's asking price vs just grabbing a Toyota Prius or Nissan Leaf or something?

Audi only made one EV at the time I got the Model 3. I did look at it. Wasn't even actually available at any area dealerships. They had an example at an electric car expo I attended, but that was it.

 

[webkit]

which goes back to my original argument, in order for Apple to boot off X, they would need to have a practical path to do so. currently they do not.

"Musk seemed to think a bit differently" is assuming Apple does have a valid practical path. they do not. X is following all of Apple's rules. Deviating from the rules puts Apple in hot water.

Which goes back to my point that Musk had felt that Apple could very well boot Twitter (now X) off the App Store and if that were to happen, his response would be making an alternative phone.

 

[webkit]

Hey now, they did reinvent the (steering)wheel!

View attachment 2241603

When the controversial yoke steering launched in the Model S and Model X, Musk had said there would be NO "traditional" steering wheel option but that changed early this year as Tesla now offers both yoke and regular steering.

 

[webkit]

I'm not a particular fan of Elon, but to say that Tesla is 'falling behind in automotive' and has 'nothing on their roadmap that would have mass appeal' is a stretch.

Q1-2023 sales of the Model Y gained #1 ranking amidst all cars sold, Worldwide.

Even with Tesla's drastic price reductions and added discounts, models qualifying for U.S. federal tax credits again, etc., their EV market share declined and their recent quarter over quarter sales expanded less than the market.

 

[Sasha-1]

Which goes back to my point that Musk had felt that Apple could very well boot Twitter (now X) off the App Store and if that were to happen, his response would be making an alternative phone.

I would love to watch Musk make a go of creating a new smartphone. Microsoft tried many times and failed. Even though Android is its creation, Google has struggled with it. Musk would take a short way out and clone the OS running on Tesla cars, adapting it for the smartphone.

He could add the Google AppStore and allow sideloading or create his own AppStore like Amazon does. I don't think it will succeed, but I'd welcome watching it unfold.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Now Elon haters should say thank you for helping creators earn more money.

What kind of mental gymnastics are they going to pull now to justify their hate?

Do they hate on Apple for not allowing sideloading or hate the billionaire space man? Decisions decisions...🤣

Man, the Space Karen fans are something else.

 

[tripsync]

Which goes back to my point that Musk had felt that Apple could very well boot Twitter (now X) off the App Store and if that were to happen, his response would be making an alternative phone.

Which would happen if Musk broke the rules which goes back to my point about Musk being unhappy about the cut is different than Apple changing the rules to boot X off the store.

Sorry, but we're talking in circles. Have a good one.

 

[splifingate]

Even with Tesla's drastic price reductions and added discounts, models qualifying for U.S. federal tax credits again, etc., their EV market share declined and their recent quarter over quarter sales expanded less than the market.

Unlike Big Social, the EV market is becoming far less concentrated by-the-day.

I bowed-out of TwiX last year, so I don't really know much about all-that.

Forward-thinking declines--or advances--do not support the aforementioned assertion

 

[Contact_Feanor]

Serious question… out of all the trust-fund-baby-rich-kids in the world… how many transformed banking and rocketry and satellite coms and cars? Elon has a lot not to like… but minimizing his achievements as “ easy cause he started with money” has always seemed like the weakest argument against him to me.

As you might have read in my other post, quoted here below, it's not an argument against him. I was specifically replying to the post that claimed he built it all from nothing because "he had student debt". He didn't build it from nothing. He built it; he achieved incredible things, but he stood on the shoulders of giants, he didn't start in the gutter, as some would have you believe.

I don't need to read up on musk, I have. He did it, yes, but he wasn't a "poor college kid".

Look at Reed Jobs these days: he starts a cancer research investment funds and the same day gets 200 million dollars from investors. He did that himself, yes. Do you think he could do that if he wasn't "the son of" with all the contacts that entails? Of course not. Does that mean he's not awesome for doing it? Of course not, it's great that he's doing it.

Same for Elon: do you think any college kid immediately gets a number of "business angels" investing in their "small startup" the day they leave college? Nope. Does that diminish what he achieved at Tesla? Nope. But he wasn't the poor college kid with student debt in the way regular Joe is a poor college kid with student debt. He was a poor college kid with student debt with a very wealthy and connected father.

 

[Contact_Feanor]

You, like others here before you, tend to read just that single post, and not the context it was posted in. read my other posts in this thread. I think Elon achieved great things, I'm not trying to diminish that. I was specifically replying to the statement that he started from zero, with nothing but debt to his name, which he did not. He might have had debt. But there's a difference in having debt to survive and debt because it's convenient from a taxation perspective.

 

[macsplusmacs]

Baby wants a screen name.
Baby takes screen name.
Baby got his blanky.
Jeremy does not understand this.
Jeremy is super pissed.

“16 years ago, I created @music and have been running it ever since,” Jeremy Vaught said wrote on his personal account. “Just now, Twitter / X just ripped it away. Super pissed.”

Longtime user ‘super pissed’ after Elon’s ‘X’ takes over his @music handle

The longtime @music account on X, former known as Twitter, had over half a million followers until the company reclaimed the handle on Friday. Now its former owner said he’s “super pissed.” “16 yea…

thehill.com

 

[tripsync]

Man, the Space Karen fans are something else.

Man, Elon haters are something else.

 

[tripsync]

Ha yes, the very poor college kid with a daddy who owned half a smaragd mine and was wealthy enough to have a private plane and the biggest house in pretoria who could leave south-africa to avoid his army duty and then left school to found several businesses.

(And before any of his fans try to deny it because Elon has been publicly denying the emerald mine story for the last couple of years, back in 2014 he talked about it himself in a Forbes interview: https://web.archive.org/web/2014090...cret-of-success-hint-it-aint-about-the-money/ )

If you're going to believe the 2014 interview, you're going to have to believe what he said on Twitter "He told me that he owned a share in a mine in Zambia, and I believed him for a while, but nobody has ever seen the mine, nor are there any records of its existence. "

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654971702571331584

You also must believe he threw parties at frat houses to pay for college/rent https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/elo...out-of-his-college-house-to-pay-for-rent.html

You also should believe he fixed and sold computers for cash: "He sold entire computers, as well as various hardware parts, from the comfort of his dorm room. He would build whatever suited the needs of fellow students – like a tricked-out gaming computer or a simple word processor, for example. " https://money.com/8-innovative-ways-elon-musk-made-money-before-he-was-a-billionaire/

He also worked on a farm, cleaned out the broiler room from the lumber mill for some extra cash: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/odd-jobs-elon-musk-had-when-he-was-younger.html

There is more evidence to show he was a poor college kid than not. It is you who decides to cherry pick whatever confirms your bias it seems. And I find that extremely odd.

 

[dwaite]

So if a creator earns under $100K a year, Apple get's $0.

But if a creator earns, say, $200K a year, instead of Apple getting $60,000 (30%), Apple will get $6,000 or 30% of the 10%, or $20,000, that Twitter/X gets?

I'm sure Apple will go along with this idea.

@internetH0f already made $107k

https://twitter.com/x/status/1679636848069738498

Revenue share program.

What percentage of those numbers are ad revenue vs subscriber revenue? Is Musk's plan is to make the majority of their revenue on ads on subscriber content rather than the subscriber revenue itself, then give Apple 30% of basically nothing?

Even if you ignore Apple getting ripped off by creative accounting, they aren't going to agree to one off terms because of all the current regulatory scrutiny.

 

[dwaite]

FYI, Musk is not the CEO of X. Linda Yaccarino is the CEO of X. By stating that Musk is CEO you minimize Linda's leadership and contributions to the company.

Care to list some of those to back up your position?

 

[dwaite]

A "solid businessman" is about the last way that I would ever describe Elon Musk.

44billion -> 15 billion. Less than a year. Real solid!

His fans thought he was playing 4D chess, but he's really trying to play golf.

 

[dwaite]

30% of the "platform fee" instead of "total revenue" is very logical to me and would probably boost Apple's profits.

You do realize that without the in-app purchase, creators get $0 as well. Apple is providing them value as well. If it was the creator's app, Apple would get 30% of that in-app subscription.

Why would Apple settle for a 3% cut through a middleman if they would have gotten 30% had the payment been made directly to the creator?

 

[dwaite]

If it were anybody else, say, an anonymous person asking for lowering fees it would be applauded… but since it’s Elon asking for lowering the fees, SUDDENLY people don’t want lowering such fees for creators.
I bet you that if Musk asked for 3rd party AppStore and side loading suddenly nobody wants sideloading anymore…

Eh, the only reason I care as a consumer about lowered fees is wondering if that would enable new use cases (such as Kindle purchases in-app, which is exactly this same problem)

Anonymous people have been saying Apple charges too much for a really long time. Haven't applauded such waste of air yet. Seems like it would be regulators saying so where I might actually react. However, regulators can't really outright say "sorry, you aren't allowed to maintain your prices anymore because you've been too successful" in capitalist markets.

Elon doesn't give a poo emoji about creators, he wants a new source of revenue (in-app subscriptions to creator content). If there's a 30% cost, that revenue stream is likely not viable.

I'm not in charge of either company, but his proposal comes off quite frankly as nonsense. Apple would be charging a higher percentage if the creators were taking in-app purchases directly. There's no way they'll voluntarily let a middleman underprice the App Store.

At very best, it would be Apple taking their 15/30% based on the individual creator, and giving X a cut.

It is what it is, and no, I have said it many times, I’m no Elon fan and I do get behind the 15% fee lowering that Apple did some time ago, I would totally get behind this endeavor too… if possible that is, so why not knock on that door.

Apple would have to provide a new scheme for everyone for regulatory reasons. This is just another loud voice asking for a new scheme. Elon isn't going to come up with any ingenious new plan which nobody at Apple (or other prior companies asking for this like Facebook) has not brought up before.

The reason I think it would be a direct relationship between Apple and the creators with an "affiliate fee" or the like to the app is that otherwise it consolidates way too much additional power for large apps negotiating lower rates than creators could get with their own apps directly. Direct payment means the creators could use the same account across services, and across their own independent services should they create them.

 

[dwaite]

Apple keeping 30% of fees creators earn through using an app on their iPhone is clear lunacy. Imagine they tried to claim 30% of a software developer's salary who codes on a MacBook Pro...

How are those remotely related, other than both being statements involving percentages of money?

 

[dwaite]

I just want social media to fade away. It causes more harm while isolating each other. 1’s and 0’s will never and should never replace genuine human interaction, it’s the only way we’ll advance as a society. Otherwise, it’s divisive rhetoric and propaganda that’s easily weaponized to create discord and destruction.

You brought up several unrelated problems associated with the nebulous concept of "social media".

Some people have built up entire relationships on social media, and built up in-person relationships starting with social media. So its not necessarily isolating, nor does it necessarily lead to less "genuine human interaction".

Likewise, conversations with friends and in small groups on topics we are all interested don't degrade (often) to rhetoric and weaponized propaganda.

What you seem to be complaining about is the algorithmic "timeline", where messages boil to the top across the entire network based on their interactions, meaning usually weighted on people having extreme emotional reactions to their contents (positive or negative). Not all things in the bucket labelled "social media" have that, and many which do let you avoid it.

 

[dwaite]

Twitter is an example of a brand that is s famous that it does not really need the app store of Apple. It could offer the app for download on its own website, if Apple would not keep its ecosystem so closed. The only reason that Apple does not allow that is making money. Apple does not own your iPhones. So it does not have the right to prevent you from installing whatever software you want from whatever source. My notebook actually contains much more private information than my smartphone.

Users go to x.com, select "Add to Home Screen" from menu. X Corp gets to keep 100% of their revenue, also can fire half their mobile app development team as is their trend.

Every justification for why that isn't viable to X Corp is an example of value Apple could give for value provided through the App Store.

Imagine they did they same for Macs. Would you still defend that practice with the same arguments, if you could only install software from the App Store on a Mac and would have to pay a 30% fee to Apple?

This never will happen and never could happen. If apple wants to create a computer which requires people to get their apps through the App Store, then they should have done more damn work on making iPad better.

The market and regulators would never stand for them locking down an existing platform like this.

That said, the Mac app ecosystem is significantly less healthy than the iOS app ecosystem. I would posit this is partially because of so many companies steering to websites rather than having native apps, or having their "native" app just be a repackaging of their website a la Electron, or a general lack of ability for the average Mac user to discover new apps which they might find useful.

That the Mac App Store is not required has enabled apps which do not meet its security requirements to stay alive, but it has not led to a more vibrant ecosystem.

Would it be okay for you to pay a 30% fee to Apple, if you use your future Apple Car as an Uber?

This is a complete nonsense argument compared to the App Store, as the 30% fee is on app creators to sell services via native apps to be consumed in-app - not consumers providing services in the real world.

But that said, there are terms to this exact effect in the FSD contract provided by Tesla - that you could only have your vehicle provide ride-sharing services to companies approved by Tesla, so that they can take a cut.

 

[dwaite]

as the saying goes 'If you do not ask, you do not get'.

I'm not a billionaire, (in case you didn't realize). However, I suspect if I needed a big favor it would be better for me to ask directly, privately - rather than via the press.

 

[dwaite]

Maybe Musk turned down Apple's carplay because Apple likes to have exclusivity, as in with it's deal with MLS and it's rumored interest in the UK's EPL.

source: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...g-rights.2377070/?post=31878352#post-31878352

They are streaming rights, they are paying for eyeballs. The exclusivity is why there is competitive bidding.

If the league let three other services match Apple's price, then it devalues what apple pays for by (at least) 2/3rds.

The leagues don't have to give exclusive streaming rights, but they should be prepared for the offers to drop by well over half, as well as a lot of interest to drop off.

What makes Apple different is that they want worldwide exclusive rights. For some parties (like MLS), thats huge because it gives them a huge boost in worldwide coverage - and they weren't going to get comparable bids in other markets anyway.

CarPlay isn't an exclusivity play though. Most receivers support a native OS, as well as CarPlay and Android Auto. CarPlay is basically an App in the car's native OS - it basically turns the car's console into an external screen to the phone. It is purposely designed to be pretty easy to support on the car side, because they can't dictate significant CPU/storage requirements and aren't coding bespoke apps onto manufacturer's platforms.

Just because Musk would not integrate Apple carplay into Tesla does not indicate that there is a problem with the man.

It is an indicator in the "doesn't care what his customers want" column at most.

There maybe more to it that we actually do not know.

Hypothetically if Tesla cared even more than they do today about what their customers wanted, they'd share their good and valid reason for not supporting CarPlay.