Facebook Won't Take a Cut From Creators Until 2023, Zuckerberg Says in Shot at Apple (cnbc.com) 18
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday announced that the social media company will wait until at least 2023 before taking a cut of revenue from creators who use the site to distribute their work or promote events. From a report: Specifically, the company will not take a cut of any revenue generated by paid online events, fan subscriptions, badges and Facebook's upcoming independent news product, Zuckerberg said in a post on Facebook. Zuckerberg also used his post to jab at Apple, which kicks off its WWDC annual developers conference Monday. "When we do introduce a revenue share, it will be less than the 30% that Apple and others take," Zuckerberg wrote, referring to the cut Apple takes on all products sold through apps that users have downloaded through its App Store. "We're also launching a new payout interface so creators can see how different companies' fees and taxes are impacting their earnings."
Facebook's main revenue source is ads (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook should commit to not showing any ads instead of committing to not taking revenue. ABC/CBS/NBC does not charge revenue unlike Disney/HBO (channels). That does not make them any better.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not how capitalism works. You don't stop charging people money once you've covered your costs. You charge everybody you can as much as they're willing to pay to maximize your profits. It's neither illegal nor immoral to charge everybody who uses your system as much as you can.
The only reason *not* "double dip" is that it will encourage creators to distribute their works through other platforms, attracting Facebook users to competitors and undermining Facebook's strategy of being plugged into user
Re: (Score:2)
It's neither illegal nor immoral to charge everybody who uses your system as much as you can.
Agree 100% with the not illegal part, but I'd have to say that the not immoral part is just a tad off.
Re: (Score:1)
In this case, it is extremely immoral, it could not possibly be more immoral, it is really quite disgusting and inhumane, insanely psychopathic in fact.
Those profits are paid for with advertising promoting wasteful consumption, manipulating people into consuming more than is necessary to consume as much as they can and then more, to wantonly pollute with wasteful consumption. This in a time of catastrophic climate change, destroying our environment and our ability to survive as developing societies, PROMOT
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're really saying is
you're going to tell us exactly how much we can consume and how much we can't.
Because we can't possibly figure it out on our own. Thanks to advertising. Got it.
Re: (Score:1)
faggot
Kind of like how the mafia waits for your business (Score:3)
to grow big enough before showing up with baseball bats and a protection scheme. It's just more profitable to wait before harvest.
Starting to feel the heat there FB? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> And in a try to get new content and creators letting them do it for free for now...
What type of content creator would want to use Facebook. I mean, what would that say about them as a content creator? And why would pretty much any content creator want to reach the audience the Facebook has?
There would obviously be some, that wanted to reach middle-aged housewives, generally old people, and particularly angry old people, who would use Facebook regardless of an incentive...but any content creator, that w
Re: (Score:2)
At least AIM was useful. Facebook is just garbage.
Isn't that what we want? (Score:2)
Seems people are abandoning the ship in droves. And in a try to get new content and creators letting them do it for free for now... I think (and hope) it will pass in to the digital heaven and join myspace, aim etc in obscurity.
What you described sounds like competing. I have no love for facebook, but OK, they're hated, so they're trying new things to get an audience. I think they're too big to fail. The difference between myspace and AIM was they were optional. Facebook is civically mandatory. Your local school or PTA is not going to run their own website...some mom will just post event info on facebook, along with birthday parties or small local non-profits organizing fundraisers. They're too big to fail and someone needs
ZSuckssssss (Score:1)
Never mind taking a cut, try not to delete the whole work or the creator, like life saving medical information on ivermectin and vitamin D3.
Facebook takes a all of the revenue generated (Score:3)
Facebook by definition takes a cut of the revenue generated by you. In fact, it takes all the revenue generated by you and your content.
WTF does the press let CEOs say this kind of bullshit?
That's even worse (Score:3)
Facebook also promoted the fact they didn't have ads when they had competition for users.
This is their typical method of moving into a market. Like drug dealers, get them hooked with some freebies, then rack up the price.
Just stop using it (Score:2)
HA HA! (Score:1)
T minus 572 (Score:2)