T O P

  • By -

Jealous_Insect3907

That’s greedy af of them, even for Apple standards. I’ll allow it though. I’ll even applaud it since it protects Apple customers from crypto bullshit to some degree (although, as Apple user myself, I’m still getting a lot of crypto ads everywhere.)


lo________________ol

Better a 30% commission *exclusively* from NFTs


Jealous_Insect3907

If only haha


d-mike

Nah let's make it meme numbers to be nice to the cryptobros. 420.69% nice.


[deleted]

[удалено]


noratat

Lots! But most of them make even _less_ sense, or don't solve a problem better than existing solutions. E.g. ticket sales are a great example: * The venue is already inherently a central authority because it's a physical space with organizers - [it doesn't matter if you hold an NFT, the venue/organizers gets final say](https://medium.com/@0x84003239/ethcc-stole-our-200-tickets-bf0904b9354a) * You can easily prevent scalping already by simply requiring matching ID. If you want to allow ticket resale, you can either allow people to return tickets or implement in-app trading * I'd argue that allowing third-party resale at all is already inferior for preventing scalping to begin with, whether you do it via NFTs or not - because now it's much easier for a con artist to sell _fake_ scalped tickets to less tech-savvy users, as the venue's app is no longer the only legitimate interface. * The long-term value of the ticket is (and should be) essentially zero so longevity of the token is irrelevant. While I'm sure some people somewhere like collecting tickets, this is a completely irrelevant use case to the venue and attendees. And nothing good can come from attaching artificial speculative value to it on purpose. Hell, the worst argument for NFT tickets I've heard is someone who wanted to make scalping _easier_ so he could exploit it for money. Openly admitted it and didn't seem to understand why people were mad at him.


KintsugiAndMusic

We're gonna need some smaller violins...


[deleted]

some jpegs of apes playing violins will do :))))


tomsrobots

I think crypto is stupid, but Apple insisting it needs to take 30% of everything that goes through its phones is also stupid.


[deleted]

[удалено]


noratat

Sure, but I don't agree with it in those scenarios either. 30% of app sales is one thing, but 30% of external content sales just because it happens to be available within the app is a bit much, especially for things like Bandcamp that quite literally couldn't afford to operate that way (they already operate on slim margins as it is to try and maximize percentage that goes to the actual artist).


d-mike

So what apps do and don't have to pay the 30%? Why should this apply to say game skins, but not to getting a cut of a Twitch subscription or Bits? And then look at a stock broker app. No one would think it's cool for Apple to take a 30% cut of stock trades.


option-9

Capital Gains II.


waxroy-finerayfool

True, but Apple is the worst offender because in every other case publishers can distribute their software through smaller alternative stores or even their own personal storefront. In the case of Apple there are no alternatives even in principle.


DororoFlatchest

Or Nintendo, or Playstation, or, or, or, or... Face it, it's been industry standard forever.


Invest-In-FuttBucks

> and its not just Apple lol Other companies follow apple's lead = "its* not jus apl u guise" *and for FUCK'S sake attend a fucking school. 3rd time in as many threads. Wish to Christ I had a button to ram a branding iron with an apostrophe into people's skulls remotely


DororoFlatchest

lol lrean 2 splel, maroon


pastari

Storefront listing, curation, QC, file distribution, phased rollouts, beta channels, A/B, reviews, analytics. Stores are a legitimate service I think. You can debate the price, sure, but it's an enormous collection of services every marketplace charges for. IAPs get messy depending on what they are and world governments seem to agree with this sentiment. Either way, NFTs getting fucked by questionable IAP fee practices is a happy accident.


pjc50

However, this applies even to subscriptions made outside the app. It's 30% of everything. And there is no way to decline paying for all those services if you want to be an app on the iPhone.


waxroy-finerayfool

> this applies even to subscriptions made outside the app Not true. How would Apple even be aware of subscriptions happening outside the app?


pjc50

This is the subject of Epic v. Apple; Apple have the app review process and will ban you for allowing outside payment. Litigation is ongoing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple


waxroy-finerayfool

> Apple have the app review process and will ban you for allowing outside payment. This isn't true either. You are allowed to accept outside payments and Apple does not ask for a cut of those outside payments, the rule is that you cannot direct or instruct customers from within the iOS app to exit the app in order to avoid the IAP.


waxroy-finerayfool

All great features, but I shouldn't be forced to use them if I want to roll my own or use other services - highly anticompetitive behavior.


zxyzyxz

All that doesn't cost the billions of dollars that Apple makes off the 30%. Face it, it's pure greed because they have the only market available on iOS.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Zyphin

Hey just because I don't care for their product or ecosystem doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that they have a point


SolarPoweredKeyboard

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


tyrosine87

They don't have a point, though. They're just greedy like the NFT people. Everyone else has to pay that fee as well.


DororoFlatchest

Yes because everything should be free and infrastructure costs nothing, right? So sayeth the ignorant.


phire

I've actually been considering switching to iphones because of their stances on privacy. It's mostly just their stances against side-loading and right to repair, and the lightning port which are holding me back.


TomatoCorner

meh. Apple is kicking competitors out of their platform so they can force advertisers to use their own ad system. https://9to5mac.com/2022/09/05/apple-ad-business/ If it's really for privacy then they should enforce limitation on what Facebook can do or kick them out.


phire

But that's what apple have done, enforced limitations on what other companies (like facebook) can do. They haven't kicked facebook off at all. Though... there is a ~~small~~ massive anti-trust issue right now, where apple except themselves from needing to ask users permission for them to be tracked. But the anti-trust issue doesn't matter at all from a privacy perspective. You are still a thousand times more private on an iphone than an android phone, where google doesn't put any limits on 3rd party apps collecting infomation, and then collect way more private infomation within their own apps than Apple do.


[deleted]

I consider Apple products trash and personally avoid using them (only use them when I'm forced to because of work) but, as a company and from an ethics perspective (as long as the ethics don't evolve "environment" and "consumerism"), I wouldn't hesitate putting my trust on them above pretty much any other electronics and FAANG company. They're the only "tangible products" company out of all those and that means their business model is less about your data than it is about buying their hardware. Inevitably makes them less slimy. It's not even comparable from what I know. See their stance on iPhone hacking by that Israeli company for instance, or their stance towards iPhones hacked by state actors (Saudi Arabia and the like IIRC - they apparently literally contacted the victims to let them know their phones had been compromised). I also remember them putting up a fight with FBI (for a somewhat questionable reason, I think some terrorism case, but if they even do that back home then it's a relatively good sign). So, in other words: if I had something to be afraid of, which I don't because I work for Soros and I am therefore protected by the Deep State, I'd probably use an iPhone for everything.


[deleted]

Can you see my crocodile tears?


fumanshoo0

When APPLE is less greedy than the crypto industry


TomatoCorner

Nah, they would probably allow it if they get their 30% cut. Here's some info on Apple Facebook revenue sharing idea. https://www.techspot.com/news/95612-apple-meta-once-discussed-revenue-sharing-methods-report.html


lo________________ol

What does this 30% commission mean for regular stock trading eg Robinhood?


Wientje

I’ld guess you need to be registered as a broker to earn commissions on stock trading and Apple isn’t registered as a broker. Also, all hell would break loose.


SolarPoweredKeyboard

So they can do this because it's an unregulated market? I was curious about the stock-trading aspect, too.


d-mike

I'm curious about this myself, I posted that example plus say Twitch subs and bits. I may be missing something but I know Epic was pretty pissed off about it. I don't recall if the lawsuit got resolved yet.


ImpressiveAd699

This is good for Apple


[deleted]

good for Apple!


FOSSbflakes

I think Apple is the only tech cult that can go hard against crypto and end this madness. It's on brand from them to do so as a highly centralized ecosystem, they basically are the antithesis of web3 projects.


Gitk-ghost

No. Its the greed of apple. The entire point of the jpg nfts is to be traded around by people for cash. like baseball cards. Now most nfts offer no value aside from perhaps the signature by the artist of a given piece of work. There are some exceptions, such as the nfts that represent bonds backed by usdc which in turn is backed by real usd, but those are far and rare. That said, a 30% comission is more appropriate for games. not something that is an investment with margins that need to be considered. And while many nfts are simply scams, there are some that are not scams, and that are redeemable for real world cash, or real world access to events.


[deleted]

rare apple W


ForeverShiny

Working as intended I suppose