I really like twitter attitude toward apple rules or any platform rules for that matter. twitter have a high understanding that they must play by the rules unless you want to provide the platform yourself then you can make the rules you want. but as long as you doing business with other then you have to go by the business rules that you agree on. Epic is just like a little kid who trying to get attention. not just a little kid but a spoil brat who just want things their way and doesn't care about the agreement that they signed. the way I see it, epic doesn't even have a case when they broke the contact. who want to do business with epic when they won't even comply with the rule and just break it when ever they feel like it. I really admire twitter for understand that it takes a lot to build a platform and big risk in the matter and except the high cost at 30% when twitter only get 70% but then they understand that it's 70% that they didn't have before.
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.
Twitter Executive on Super Follows and Apple's Subscription Fees: 'We're Not in the Business of Getting Around Platform Rules'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agree or disagree, Epic is still an $18 billion dollar corporation. Not exactly a little kid, and not bad for a privately held company.
Twitter is a cesspool. Nothing to admire about it.
You can install browser extensions that clean up the interface to actually make it usable. That’s one of the reason why I switched to Edge. I can actually use LinkedIn and Twitter now without it making me feel like I’m going crazy 😜
The cynic in me thinks that Twitter simply doesn’t believe they are big enough to go up against Apple. Hence they sound like they are happy to play by the rules, when in reality, they really have no choice.
The bigger they are, the more they also have to lose. Which is why Facebook has incentive to try and upset the status quo, and Twitter doesn’t. Why would Twitter want to do something which could potentially benefit the competition just as much, if not more?
The Apple 30% commission seems reasonable - if you are the only one with the subscription. Example “XYZ Digital Company charged 10$ for access to their premium content.” It doesn’t make sense if the company is splitting revenue. “Twitter is splitting the profit between themselves and the users.”
Why? Rule of thumb in business make sure your company grows. If Apple is taking 30% and Twitter takes 30% - your only leaving 30-40% for your super fan user to profit.
If Apple takes its 30%, and Twitter takes 10% than the user can profit with 60% but that means Twitter is loosing money and fueling Apple. Same can be said for any other store. (Feeding Google via Android).
Because the AppStore doesn’t make room for negotiations on their platform - a creative platform (like twitter’s super fans or Wordpress.com) can’t offer their users much in revenue. If Apple offered the ability to negotiate, than creative platforms could do something like this.
Apple takes 15%, Twitter takes 15%, offering 60% to the user and both Twitter and Apple are supported.
Of course Twitter is the example in this context and all those numbers are just for hypothetical discussions.
That 30% is still a lot of money for a platform to have to absorb. It likely will hurt the creative content author (super fan). However seeing as you couldn’t make money directly from Twitter before... maybe a 30-40% isn’t a bad idea. Your making money you weren’t before.
Lots of questions - how do you feel about this - if you were a “Superfan”.
Why? Rule of thumb in business make sure your company grows. If Apple is taking 30% and Twitter takes 30% - your only leaving 30-40% for your super fan user to profit.
If Apple takes its 30%, and Twitter takes 10% than the user can profit with 60% but that means Twitter is loosing money and fueling Apple. Same can be said for any other store. (Feeding Google via Android).
Because the AppStore doesn’t make room for negotiations on their platform - a creative platform (like twitter’s super fans or Wordpress.com) can’t offer their users much in revenue. If Apple offered the ability to negotiate, than creative platforms could do something like this.
Apple takes 15%, Twitter takes 15%, offering 60% to the user and both Twitter and Apple are supported.
Of course Twitter is the example in this context and all those numbers are just for hypothetical discussions.
That 30% is still a lot of money for a platform to have to absorb. It likely will hurt the creative content author (super fan). However seeing as you couldn’t make money directly from Twitter before... maybe a 30-40% isn’t a bad idea. Your making money you weren’t before.
Lots of questions - how do you feel about this - if you were a “Superfan”.
Potentially this could have a few youtubers (ahem 'content creat-ors'; term is as ridiculous as when any of them the word workflow so incorrectly) to come to twitter.
The engagement on twitter, for users that use it, is pretty close to real-time - although that is AT the end users discretion. The conversation continues and arguments ensue whether or not 1 person is online or not.
Youtube ... traditional videos don't have that.
Somehow twitter will need a rapid switch model for those that pay and ones that do not. Either way this feature will take some time to reach it's best potential. we shall see how this works.
I don't think I follow. If Apple took zero percent then there would be no App Store or ecosystem. Apple is a business, not a charity. Providing services for free when they can make money is the opposite of a business. The only way "apps" have displaced regular software is because it has allowed the fall of the traditional software distribution model, which again would not have happened for free. Someone is paying for it, and you can bet that no business is going to do it out of the kindness of their hearts and turn away from being successful.
The point is, there will ALWAYS be complaints. Doesn’t matter what a company does or doesn’t do. Due to the nature of social media, folks with complaints (valid or not) WILL be able to find someone else with the same complaint and attain followers and amplify that complaint. Apple could be giving every developer $200,000 a year, a house and a car, and there would be some that would complain that it’s not enough.
More than likely they would complain because Apple didn't let them have the house on the street they wanted and forced them to live close to the campus 🤣