Snap CEO is happy to pay the 30% Apple tax, says Snapchat wouldn't exist without the iPhone

midian182

Posts: 6,894   +62
Staff member
A hot potato: A lot of the tech industry supports Epic Games' crusade against the 30% commission Apple makes on in-app purchases, but not everyone is against Cupertino's store "tax." Among the latter group is Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, who says his company is "happy" to pay it and that Snapchat would not exist without the iPhone.

"We really feel like Snapchat wouldn't exist without the iPhone and without the amazing platform that Apple has created," Spiegel said on CNBC's TechCheck. "In that sense, I'm not sure we have a choice about paying the 30% fee, and of course, we're happy to do it in exchange for all of the amazing technology that they provide to us in terms of the software but also in terms of their hardware advancements."

Evan Spiegel, a fan of Apple

Apple's 30% commission isn't the only area where Spiegel holds a different view to most of the industry; he also welcomes the company's new privacy tools in iOS 14. Apple's App Tracking Transparency feature brought objections from Facebook and Google-backed ad firms. The social media giant even took out a full-page ad slamming it.

"We're really aligned with them on the changes they're making to help protect privacy," Spiegel said. "And so far, the early investments we made starting almost 10 years ago to protect user privacy on our platform are really paying off." He added that the company has been working to help its advertising clients migrate onto Apple's SKAdNetwork, which helps measure ad efficiency.

The Apple vs. Epic Games trial keeps revealing more details about Fortnite's 30-month run on the store. We heard that the iOS version of the game made $700 million for Epic, while Apple says it took at least $100 million in commission, though the actual figure was likely much higher.

Permalink to story.

 

ilovelinux

Posts: 38   +103
He is literally admitting that he is an iSlave and his firm wouldn't exist without some rear-door love from Apple.

Seems like according to him, if he doesn't have an issue with Apple tax, others shouldn't either. Typical iTard.
 
Last edited:

Dimitriid

Posts: 687   +1,216
This is a little bit of a chicken and egg argument: I believe him when he says tiktok wouldn't exist or have success without the iPhone.

But what this fails to consider is what would the market look like *without* giants like Apple and Google coming into existence. Is it too hard to believe people wouldn't buy as many phones? Of course they would. Phones also had video cameras for years before either of these mega companies raised to prominence.

People enjoyed amateur video and such for a long time before any of the tech was there. The tech just accelerated all these things but who's to say something else would have taken the place here?

This is what Mark Fisher talked about as a concept called Capitalist Realism: it is difficult and almost impossible for us to imagine a world without capitalism simply because it permeates everything we do, but our assumptions are false.

I believe it applies here: Without Apple, or Google or Microsoft or any of these giants, we would still have record numbers of people communicating with these modern devices, they didn't create the drive out of nothing they were just really good at capturing attention and making us think they created these innovations from thin air when it's so obvious it would have happened eventually anyway.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,133   +3,008
That's like your parents expecting you to pay for their living expenses forever because they raised you while you were a child.
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 349   +534
Kind of sounds like someone is happy they're paying the mob for protection......

They saw the mob come through the local neighborhood and burn another business down because they didn't want to pay. So now they're happy they're paying a lot of their money to the mob to keep their business open.
 

Oshyan

Posts: 30   +48
His comments are virtually meaningless though because Snapchat makes basically all its money through advertising which... Apple doesn't take a 30% cut of.

According to Snap's own Form 10-k reporting, as summarized by Investopedia: "Substantially all of Snap's revenue is generated from advertising, which accounted for 99% of the company's total $2.5 billion in revenue in 2020, up from 98% in 2019."

So it's real easy to say you don't mind a 30% cut when you are never actually subject to it.
 

yRaz

Posts: 3,718   +3,724
His comments are virtually meaningless though because Snapchat makes basically all its money through advertising which... Apple doesn't take a 30% cut of.

According to Snap's own Form 10-k reporting, as summarized by Investopedia: "Substantially all of Snap's revenue is generated from advertising, which accounted for 99% of the company's total $2.5 billion in revenue in 2020, up from 98% in 2019."

So it's real easy to say you don't mind a 30% cut when you are never actually subject to it.
So a 30% cut from the app store is just a 0.3% of total revenue
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 167   +104
" I'm not sure we have a choice about paying the 30% fee" And that's what this whole thing is all about. You don't have a choice but to pay Apple 30% for doing very little while creative people bring the platform piles of money.
 

CommonSenseTech

Posts: 103   +94
Without Apple, or Google or Microsoft or any of these giants, we would still have record numbers of people communicating with these modern devices, they didn't create the drive out of nothing they were just really good at capturing attention and making us think they created these innovations from thin air when it's so obvious it would have happened eventually anyway.

You’d have devices, but they wouldn’t be flat slabs of glass. Everyone would be rocking a BlackBerry Pearl 17 5G or a Palm Treo 3500 5G.

You’d send emails. You’d download apps for $40 or $50 a piece from the Handango store. There’d be no Spotify or Music Store because Jobs wouldn’t exist to convince the industry to do it.

Mobile devices would be email and messaging focused, with hardware keyboards. And Fortnight wouldn’t be much fun on a BlackBerry or Treo.
 

CommonSenseTech

Posts: 103   +94
" I'm not sure we have a choice about paying the 30% fee" And that's what this whole thing is all about. You don't have a choice but to pay Apple 30% for doing very little while creative people bring the platform piles of money.

Creative people who, of course, want to make big piles of money.

Access to the App Store is like getting a work visa to another country. You can’t just enter the ecosystem of a country and start working, even if you have a lot to offer the country — you need to be vetted, get a visa, follow the rules, and pay your taxes.

Some complain that they have to follow the rules, or wait in line, or pay taxes, and the country tells them to get lost, because there are plenty of others who will play by the rules — and nobody’s forcing you to move there. Same is true of iOS.

Epic isn’t forced to sell on iOS, any more than a British immigrant is forced to move to and work in the USA — in both cases, they want access because they can make lots of money. Therefore they’ve got to follow the rules and the process and pay the tax.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 960   +1,398
The headline should be "Snap CEO provides another reason not to use Snapchat, if you weren't already"
 

bexwhitt

Posts: 540   +223
Creative people who, of course, want to make big piles of money.

Access to the App Store is like getting a work visa to another country. You can’t just enter the ecosystem of a country and start working, even if you have a lot to offer the country — you need to be vetted, get a visa, follow the rules, and pay your taxes.

Some complain that they have to follow the rules, or wait in line, or pay taxes, and the country tells them to get lost, because there are plenty of others who will play by the rules — and nobody’s forcing you to move there. Same is true of iOS.

Epic isn’t forced to sell on iOS, any more than a British immigrant is forced to move to and work in the USA — in both cases, they want access because they can make lots of money. Therefore they’ve got to follow the rules and the process and pay the tax.
30% is excessive on a device where the company has made a very healthy profit on the device in the first place.
 

CommonSenseTech

Posts: 103   +94
30% is excessive on a device where the company has made a very healthy profit on the device in the first place.
Says who?

People who don’t like Apple’s business model are free not to develop for their platforms nor buy their devices; I don’t see why personal opinions about Apple’s business model should be the basis for any substantive legal actions.

It’s more valid to argue that without Apple adding value, there’d be no tremendous user base for Epic to exploit for its own profit, with minimal porting effort.