Ben Thompson had a wild take on this<p><a href="https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/1395766118304780292" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/1395766118304780292</a><p>> A creator sells a Ticketed Space for $5. The creator, who people are willing to pay for, gets $2.80. Twitter, who facilitated the connection and created the product, gets $0.70. Apple/Google, who leverage OS API control into a tax on all activity, do nothing and get $1.50.<p>> Imagine people arguing in 1998 that Microsoft deserves 30% of all software sales with zero alternatives allowed lmao
It’s incredible how much of tech is just scalping.<p>I’m curious what loopholes exist for this - if you charge for coupons on your own site and a hosted space required a coupon but was otherwise not possible to use, would you still have to pay Apple?
<p><pre><code> The company is partnering with Stripe to handle payments, and it says users will receive 80 percent of revenue after Apple and Google’s in-app purchase fees are taken.
</code></pre>
if stripe is handling the payments, how is a portion of this routed to Apple / Google?
I'm not sure whether most people just care about the 44% cut, but ticketed spaces does sound like a pretty interesting experiment.<p>I have been a bit skeptical about the whole Clubhouse craze, but this does seem like a reasonable starting point to build a business model around live chat.
How the hell does that work?!<p>>The company is partnering with Stripe to handle payments, and it says users will receive 80 percent of revenue after Apple and Google’s in-app purchase fees are taken<p>if Stripe take payments, how do Apple/Google get involed at all?!
It's pretty fascinating to see the conversation here. No talk of the product at all (not surprising, twitter is about a decade behind in product innovation) but it really feel's like this is the perfect product to attack Google and Apple. It takes the most sympathetic group of people - individual content creators, it gives them a tool at a pretty tight margin - 16% and then slams the hammer down on you "30% goes to Apple" so that they can continue to sell thousand dollar phones.<p>But... why on earth is Twitter picking this fight. Have they done it accidentally? They're not at a scale for this to pay off for them, and other companies are already doing the heavy lifting. This is a fight Twitter doesn't need.
Could be worse, Ticketmaster would probably add a $15 fee on top of the $5 ticket. Then, buy them all out themselves, and sell them back at highly inflated prices.
I was expecting to open the comments here and see talk about how the technical side of this would work - if Twitter is going to limit this to the app, enforce some kind of DRM in-browser, to keep these spaces private. Speculation on how they'd be preventing re-broadcasting, how this could disrupt Clubhouse, etc.<p>Sadly <i>every single top-level comment</i> is about the IAP fees, a tired and unproductive line of discussion.
> The company is partnering with Stripe to handle payments, and it says users will receive 80 percent of revenue after Apple and Google’s in-app purchase fees are taken.<p>Why go with Stripe when their CEO is also the CEO of Square? Avoiding self dealing or lost on the merits?
The real winner here is Apple and Google they get so much for almost doing nothing.<p>100% - $10 //
30% - $3 to Apple //
20% of 7 - $1.7 to Twitter (+inclusive of stripe fees) //
80% of 7 - $5.6 to host //<p>Apple and Google makes more money than the product itself. haha