And how much data has been stolen by fb from said small businesses? I bet that data is worth a hell of a lot more than what Apple take.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Facebook Claims Apple is Damaging Small Businesses by Collecting Fees From Paid Facebook Events
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Once again: DEVELOPERS CAN'T CHOOSE WHICH PHONES PEOPLE BUY. Doesn't matter if Facebook or the single dev. "have their own store on their own phone"... great solution...
Say I am a beef producer and I exclusively sell my beef to MacDonalds but people chose to go to Burger King instead. The beef producer can't choose which fast food outlet the hungry customer goes to.
That's how it goes. That's life. If I want more people eating my beef, I have three options:
1. Hope more people eat at MacDonalds
2. Try to get MacDonalds competition to use my beef (purchase it from me)
3. Open up my own fast food restaurant and hope people eat my beef there.
If I try to extort MacDonalds by demanding I get more money out of them, they will probably drop me as a supplier of beef. The only fault that would be is my own. I can ask for a better deal but if they say no, that's life. If I try anything shady I'll get the boot and rightfully so.
MacDonalds is just as much a mega corporation as Apple is. If I want MacDonalds customers eating my beef I have to play by MacDonalds rules. Just like if you want Apple customers using your app, you need to play by Apple's rules.
Facebook is literally in no position to criticize anybody for anything. The fact that they try to stand some moral ground in any case is really concerning.
“Facebook is waiving its own fees for the feature "for at least the next year."
So basically Facebook is deferring its own greed in order to wipe out Meetup, Craigslist and many free listing services....but is positioning this as a virtue difference vs Apple?
You have to be pretty stupid to fall for this.
So basically Facebook is deferring its own greed in order to wipe out Meetup, Craigslist and many free listing services....but is positioning this as a virtue difference vs Apple?
You have to be pretty stupid to fall for this.
Last edited:
Facebook wants Apple to waive its 30 percent fee taken from in-app purchases or let Facebook process event payments with Facebook Pay, both of which Apple has refused.When a business owner schedules an event through Facebook on iOS, Facebook will make it clear that Apple is taking a 30 percent cut of the purchase price. Facebook is waiving its own fees for the feature "for at least the next year."
Article Link: Facebook Claims Apple is Damaging Small Businesses by Collecting Fees From Paid Facebook Events
Facebook is big enough to build its own React based ecosystem. Instead they use Apple’s. You must pay to play. It’s easy enough to direct users to save a web app as a home screen icon. You can cache assets for offline use. You can have web based / browser based databases. So, Facebook. Don’t like Apple’s solution? Build your own. Maybe even build a FacePhone™
Nah, that's not close to the scenario we have with the App-Stores...
You are not a beef producer, you produce the final product that ends on the table 1:1. You are technically perfectly capable of serving your stuff to the customer directly...
You could build your own restaurants and sell it yourself, but McDonalds and BurgerKing unfortunately own all the land and won't sell or even rent to you knowing that would cost them revenue. As such you can sell to them or not at all...
Now that's much closer, but still not perfect.
If you are a developer you are basically forced to have you product on Android and iOS. Some things might even fail completely if you can't reach both plattforms, like messengers.
When you go to the grocery store, do you expect that some items in the grocery store will either be free or have no mark up from the wholesale price? The pea grower doesnt get the whole amount that the grocery store is selling the peas for, the grocery store gets its cut on every item and the pea grower gets theirs . I dont see this as being any different. It's the price for having an item on their shelves.
why is facebook damaging businesses by charging them to schedule events in the first place?
Please could invent a tech changing device and do all the research and make amazingly stable software
And we DEMAND you let us make millions selling on that platform and not pay you one stinking cent.
Ah yes. The everyone gets a trophy generation is now developing apps.
And we DEMAND you let us make millions selling on that platform and not pay you one stinking cent.
Ah yes. The everyone gets a trophy generation is now developing apps.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now FB is trying to jump on the "we're going to [pretend to] fight on behalf of the user" bandwagon, too??? Hilarious. I mean, don't get me wrong, as a developer I'm all for Apple lowering their cut—particularly for IAP subscriptions. But the bulls**** narrative that Epic, Spotify, and now FB are doing this on behalf of users is sooooo pathetic.
In truth, the value of the App Store is arguably much less than it was 5 or 10 years ago, since the sheer volume of content has made an app's mere presence there basically irrelevant. Perhaps if they did more to help with visibility the 30% would still be justified, but arguably it isn't really justified anymore...
In truth, the value of the App Store is arguably much less than it was 5 or 10 years ago, since the sheer volume of content has made an app's mere presence there basically irrelevant. Perhaps if they did more to help with visibility the 30% would still be justified, but arguably it isn't really justified anymore...
Last edited:
I would like to see them try.
I see this going down like google maps. In the short run, it might sting for Apple (in that they might lose some customers), but in the long run, Apple just might be able to position their own offerings as alternatives and get users to switch to them, thereby strengthening their own standing while weakening that of the competition.
What Apple can bet on is that users do love Apple devices and are less likely to switch. So between giving up Apple products (which they are already deeply invested in) and giving up said app, they just might choose the latter.
Here’s what I am prepared to do if these apps were suddenly made unavailable on iOS.
Spotify - am already on Apple Music. This arguably impacts Apple the least because they already have a ready alternative on hand.
Microsoft - I have survived 6 years without office on iOS, I can survive another eternity if I have to. There are plenty of alternatives when it comes to taking notes and making presentations.
Facebook - I don’t use Facebook, and it’s available in the browser anyways (which incidentally, lets me benefit from ad blockers). If WhatsApp is blocked, I will go to every one of my friends and get them to download telegram (many already have said app on their phones) and I am prepared to do my upmost to move as many of them to iMessage and / or telegram.
There’s also News to replace Facebook feed.
Netflix - I will get a chromecast so I can watch YouTube and Netflix on my living room TV, and simply not watch them on my iOS devices. Might also get me to check out the TV app more. These apps are also accessible through the browser either way.
Meanwhile, I won’t be surprised if Apple retaliates by continue to work on their own in-house offerings and make people realise that these so-called indispensable apps really aren’t so “indispensable” after all.
They want to declare war on Apple, they declare war on all of Apple’s users. I am not switching, so if they want to continue being able to access me as a customer, then they will go through the App Store.
For if it’s a fight they all want, it’s a fight they will all get.
I agree this should be done, but I'm curious whether this would somehow run afoul of price-fixing?
a few fake developer thinking apple is good platform, for small company or indie.. Worthless and -negative value.
For me, -ve. No meaning at all and overprice platform to build.Most client, eh why apple charge so high not like android?
So no one finds it odd these developers and companies only complain about how it stifles competition for “others” when it affects them personally. Facebook and Epic aren’t doing this for the freedom of others. They’re doing it simply because they want to be on the AppStore for free and collect all money.
Personally what I think Apple should do is say “you have to pay 10% of all the money you make from those who use the AppStore” for instance Facebook would have to pay the 10% fee based on how much money they make from people just using the app since Facebook makes its money on Ad revenue. And this would be far harder for these companies and developers to fight. A lot of game developers have VIP tiers you have to pay a monthly fee for.
Or Apple can say they will drop the tier on Facebook to 15% rather than 30% if Facebook agrees to flat out ban posts that have misinformation. Since Facebook has refused to do that because you know profits matter more than facts.
Personally what I think Apple should do is say “you have to pay 10% of all the money you make from those who use the AppStore” for instance Facebook would have to pay the 10% fee based on how much money they make from people just using the app since Facebook makes its money on Ad revenue. And this would be far harder for these companies and developers to fight. A lot of game developers have VIP tiers you have to pay a monthly fee for.
Or Apple can say they will drop the tier on Facebook to 15% rather than 30% if Facebook agrees to flat out ban posts that have misinformation. Since Facebook has refused to do that because you know profits matter more than facts.
I imagine from Apple’s point of view, 1. if they can, why not and 2. if they were to allow some IAP without the levy, how do you police apps going ‘Free’ with an immediate IAP paywall or avoid absolutely no games being made going forward using the pay-once model?
Pretty much confirms that you work for Apple.
If this was happening in a real-world store like Walmart or Target, they'd be getting more than 30%. I believe that Apple should be happy with 15% but that's just me.
If Facebook users can't sign up for events some other way, that's too bad. Facebook has made too much money from our information, and should be giving much more than they take.
Oh please.
Participation trophies were given out in the 80s at least, so the "participation trophy generation" is at least 40 now. Participation trophies were never about kids anyway -- they sure didn't ask for them. They're about the boomer parents who wanted to think their kid is special. Don't blame Millennials for that crap.
For everyone who thinks it's fair game for Apple to demand a 30% cut of any in-app transaction and block apps from using a different payment mechanism since it's their business, well, I wonder how you thought about Microsoft merely bundling Internet Explorer with Windows in the 90s and making it hard to remove. That was supposed to be anti-competitive and evil, right?
Now the New York Times has picked up on this story. It’s not going to end well for Apple in the court of public opinion.
www.nytimes.com
How Apple’s 30% App Store Cut Became a Boon and a Headache (Published 2020)
App makers like the game company Epic and the music service Spotify are challenging Apple’s right to a large cut of their sales. Regulators have taken notice.