5 ms·
>Very interesting that they chose to go with a tipping model vs letting creators set up "pay to enter" chat rooms. I believe the only way around Apple requesti
by hbosch 6y ago
>Very interesting that they chose to go with a tipping model vs letting creators set up "pay to enter" chat rooms.
I believe the only way around Apple requesting a cut of the payment is to explicitly avoid any notion of "unlocking" extras or access within the app. The tipping method is just a way for users to send money to each other, no biggie... but "unlocking a room" is basically an IAP, or could be defined as one.
- skinnymuch 6y agoPatreon doesn’t give a cut to Apple. It isn’t that far from what is described.
- philistine 6y agoExactly. Apple is arbitrary when applying their own terms. Like Darth Vader.
- skinnymuch 6y agoYeah. Your sibling comment drew a distinction, but it seems that distinction has arbitrary holes in its consistency as well. I’m sure if Patreon 50x’ed revenue and traffic starting next month — Apple would begin treating them more harshly.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ec109685 6y agoIt’s because it’s for a good or service outside the app and not a digital good.
- skinnymuch 6y agoIs this actually applied properly and consistently? How is a Patreon of videos or audio different than Spotify or Netflix? Didn’t they both have to remove being able to subscribe via their iOS apps unless they wanted to lose a 30% cut? This makes it completely arbitrary then. As I can subscribe to a new Patreon in the app still.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ec109685 6y agoYeah, good point. Here are the explicit guidelines: 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Services: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person services between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime services must use in-app purchase.