13 ms·

Another point that Patreon isn't really emphasizing here that seems relevant to any conversations about "fairness" is that Apple's fees on Patreon subscriptions

Another point that Patreon isn't really emphasizing here that seems relevant to any conversations about "fairness" is that Apple's fees on Patreon subscriptions in-app are now higher than Patreon's fees. It's important to recognize any time that we're talking about the market that services charge what they can, not what is fair. The market does not have a concept of fairness, only competition. This is why there is no such thing as a benevolent monopoly that charges fair prices - because fairness does not exist in the market, only competition. BUT... since fairness gets so often brought into conversations about Apple's fees, often with the implicit suggestion that Apple "deserves" to be compensated for all of the work they're putting into hosting and curating apps and for (in heavy quotes) "creating" a market that they supposedly also don't have duopoly control over: does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? Like, if we're going to talk about what's egregious and what's not egregious, charging higher fees per-transaction than the platforms you are hosting seems like it might be a good indicator that things have gotten out of control.

queuebert 2y ago
Kind of like how realtors make more money on a house transaction than the closing attorneys who draw up all the paperwork and execute it legally.
- danShumway 2y ago
  Or, I would argue, like if a realtor made more money off of the sale than the person selling the house made.
  - abfan1127 2y ago
    that is easily true. You buy a house for $500k. A year later, you decide to move. The house's value remains at $500k. Realtor commissions of 6% cost you $30k. You lost $30k on the total transaction, the realtor made $30k (not including the original buy).
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Surely the realtor shouldn't work for $0 just because your investment didn't pan out, though?
    - danShumway 2y ago
      Only on HN would I see someone argue that depreciating or stagnant assets are the same thing as a 30% transaction fee. This community is smart enough to be able to tell the difference between a tax on revenue and a tax on profit. Apple is imposing a tax on revenue that is higher than the revenue that Patreon pulls in from each transaction fee. There is no equivalent situation in a realtor market. In no world would a realtor sell your house for $500k and then tell you that they deserve a higher cut of the revenue than you do.
- frumper 2y ago
  I don't know if that is a good comparison. Our realtor has spent a lot of hours over the past few years showing us homes and writing up more than a few losing bids. It's not constant attention, but so far it's all unpaid.
  - queuebert 2y ago
    One is necessary to have a legal transaction, while the other is rent-seeking. People buy cars all the time without agents. We have excellent websites to educate us about car features and locate cars for sale. Realtors keep their racket going by working with each other to get houses sold, while ignoring FSBO homes. In fact, buyer's agents have a conflict of interest in that they get paid more if you pay more for the house. How people accept this befuddles me.
    - frumper 2y ago
      I’ve never had a realtor suggest an offer price or apply the slightest bit of pressure to offer more. Maybe you should find a new realtor.
Y_Y 2y ago
> It's important to recognize any time that we're talking about the market that services charge what they can, not what is fair. The market does not have a concept of fairness, only competition. This is why there is no such thing as a benevolent monopoly that charges fair prices - because fairness does not exist in the market, only competition. I agree with you that the reality of markets is quite different to the "common sense" model. Unfortunately I rarely find either in the press or just talking to people myself, that anyone gets beyond this kind of price=cost(1+a little incentive) thinking.
AmericanChopper 2y ago
I don't like this action form Apple, but I don't agree with your assessment of market economics here. The problem with "fairness" is that there is no objective measure of it. Everybody evaluates fairness according to how it aligns with their own personal interests. This is one of the key problems a free market economy solves. Price discovery is the intersection of what somebody's willing to sell something for, and what somebody else is willing to pay for it. Both of these parties will have a completely different idea of what's fair. That's why fairness is not a valid price discovery mechanism, and I don't think any free market economist has ever advocated for it.
- Waterluvian 2y ago
  Would this view conclude that there should never be regulation of any sort? Or is there possibly a level of “fairness” that’s evident to the average person?
  - Dracophoenix 2y ago
    Regulation is itself neither objective nor fair. Additionally, regulation is not immune from market pressures as the legal environments and incentives they create are also subject to competition. No nation-state has a monopoly on hospitable business environments. Fairness at its most objective is merely a process. It's not and should not be proselytized as a guarantee of equal outcomes irrespective of circumstances. > Or is there possibly a level of “fairness” that’s evident to the average person? The "average person" does not exist and thus doesn't have an opinion representative of an arbitrary individual or group of individuals. A rational flesh-and-blood person can only speak for himself.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      Oh god how tiresome these libertarians can get. Particularly when they've let their brains be turned into mush by reading too much Ayn Rand, or Mises et al. Hope you grow out of it.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
riku_iki 2y ago
> Another point that Patreon isn't really emphasizing here that seems relevant to any conversations about "fairness" is that Apple's fees on Patreon subscriptions in-app are now higher than Patreon's fees. they are both rent seeking middle-men who abuse network effect, its just one has more power than another.
- danShumway 2y ago
  This gets brought up a lot in conversations about Apple. In one sense, I agree with it. Patreon is a rent-seeking middleman who abuses network effects. 100%. But the creators on Patreon who's income are going to be most affected by this don't care about which side of the debate is more likeable to you, and I'm kind of sick of pretending that policies that affect a huge swath of people (often people with limited options, virtually no power, and few backup resources) can be treated like popularity contests. The video essayists, programmers, artists, authors, and indies doing weird, wonderful work supported through Patreon get their revenue squeezed even tighter, being forced to either bleed revenue or subscribers due to new fees, being forced to abandon revenue models and subscription models that Apple doesn't like.. and, I mean, honestly, "I hate both companies" just is not a valid or acceptable response to that situation. The solution to rent-seeking middlemen is not to make more of them.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    I am wondering why Apple and Patreon even a thing in this market. Most of the content is distributed through Youtube, so Google can just step in, create patreon interface and cut both of them, get some extra revenue, and be a good guy.
    - iteria 2y ago
      Because not everything is distributed on YouTube. I support writers and artists on patreon. That's the bulk of what I support. Even if we say Google, youtube creators already complain about youtube and how it squeezes them so is it really better? Youtube even has a patreon like thing, but creators prefer to diversify the platforms they are on. Especially if, as is common, what they are selling on patreon are things that aren't allowed on youtube.
cyberax 2y ago
[flagged]
- iudqnolq 2y ago
  I downloaded the Patreon app to listen to podcasts. Regardless of who is to blame from my perspective their imperfect app provides a better user experience than Firefox or Chrome on my Android phone.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Does it sync them for offline listen? I can do that with Youtube videos in a browser. They could have trivially added that to their website.
    - desert_rue 2y ago
      I was able to get the feed and import it into my favorite podcast app (Overcast). I don’t open the app very often.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Regardless of who is to blame It's Apple on IOS for not even being able to get a proper web app off the ground. For android, there's probably no primary blame here. But there is financial incentive to produce an app over a mobile website when given a choice.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Yeah exactly. Patreon doesn't have to be an app. It would work just fine as a website or even as a progressive web app. There is absoluteluy no need for it except marketing and data collection from the user (the main reason that most platforms say they are 'better in our app'). It's not at all better for the user, it's better for the platform. They can access more data from the user which they can use for marketing. There's the rub. Even without Apple's advertiser ID they can still collect a ton more info than a PWA. It also stops the user from using adblockers in many cases. The thing is: Patreon is a service that's meant to be paid by a small fee included in the donations. There should be no need for them to gather data on their users as well.
brookst 2y ago
> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? I'll bite, kind of. People get emotional about particular companies so let's abstract them away: is it possible for a second-tier distributor to bring more value to a first-tier distributor than the first-tier brings to suppliers? Looking at it that way, sure. It seems obvious. If a local distributor picks up a local product, and then a national distributor buys from the local distributor, it's pretty obvious that the national distributor brings more value. Looping back to the specifics, if Apple was the primary means that people discover Patreon and the creators on it, sure, it would make sense. But for Patreon specifically that's not the case (I think). The economics would suggest that Patreon should do away with their iOS app, focus iOS users on the web, and everyone would be ahead.
- baby_souffle 2y ago
  > The economics would suggest that Patreon should do away with their iOS app, focus iOS users on the web, and everyone would be ahead. Apple doesn’t let web apps do everything that native apps can do. Their App Store is the only way people get apps on their device and if a search for ‘patreon’ in the App Store returns nothing, that’s a lot of confused or angry people that are going to wonder what their monthly bill is for. Maybe some very low double digit percentage of these people will try to load a pwa from patreon.com
  - tensor 2y ago
    What? I have many many many monthly bills that are not iPhone apps. My gas bill may or may not have an iOS app, but I'm sure as hell not confused and angry if it doesn't.
    - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
      Your gas bill is probably charged and billed directly by the gas supplier. People get confused very easily when small digital subscriptions are charged through third parties on behalf of sellers whose name is often different from the app or service. I'm not sure a shop app fixes that though. Better communication and better choice of names seems far more important.
ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
> Another point that Patreon isn't really emphasizing here that seems relevant to any conversations about "fairness" is that Apple's fees on Patreon subscriptions in-app are now higher than Patreon's fees. Unfortunately this is in the nature of suppliers and retailers. Supermarkets make more profit on a litre of milk than farmers. Way way way more. Because they know farmers in practice have to sell _all_ their milk, not just some of it. And what Apple really has, and knows it, is the only supermarket on the main road out of iBorough. And there are no corner shops.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Often milk is a 'loss leader' for supermarkets. They put it as far away from the entrance as possible so you have to walk through the whole store.
  - rembicilious 2y ago
    Is this really true? Maybe it just makes sense to put high demand refrigerated products in the refrigerated room near the loading dock where the refrigerated trailer is unloaded?
    - fmj 2y ago
      Yeah, I hear people repeat that a lot, but it doesn't entirely align with my experience. A lot of the grocery stores I shop at (mostly Kroger and other national chains,) have a cooler right up front with the most popular dairy/refrigerated items for the people that are just there to pick those up.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        All the Krogers I've been to have had the dairy opposite the entrance.
  - 2y ago
xyst 2y ago
It’s time for tech (not just Apple) to be broken up. If only we haven’t defanged the regulatory agencies …
- hermitdev 2y ago
  > It’s time for tech (not just Apple) to be broken up. If only we haven’t defanged the regulatory agencies … I think you mean we should de-FAANG the regulatory agencies.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- simonh 2y ago
  Broken up in what way, and how would it help?
  - desert_rue 2y ago
    Generally, the Apple Store would be a separate company from Apple phones. A user gets to choose which store they want to use on their phone. Along with other things like which map app is the default. This way, the different stores could compete - by charging lower fees or offering more services. Like the android store does a bare-bones check of the app and so it only charges 10%. Apple checks every app throughly, so it charges 15%. Some open source store might have 0% fee, have no app checks, no payment processing, and it is 100% on the user not to download infested software.
    - highwaylights 2y ago
      Although I agree in principle, the counter-argument to this is that Apple would ultimately be blamed in the minds of consumers for not keeping those devices protected from bad software. They could say I told you so, but that doesn’t help them after the golden goose of the App Store has already been cooked.
      - 2y ago
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Fair is what two consenting adults agree to in the market place. >does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? I will. If most apple users refuse to go outside the app store for their content, Than clearly they care more about the ease of access than the content itself. I agree that the high proportion t of take between the two firms says a lot about the state of the market. It also says a lot about the users, and what they care about. I think people are shocked by these outcomes because they aren't used to thinking about transaction costs as meaningful. Transfer, trust, and triangulation are critical parts of an exchange, and their costs can be even greater than the good itself.
- brigadier132 2y ago
  > Fair is what two consenting adults agree to in the market place. This has been known to not be true since capitalism was first conceived. I am the biggest free market capitalism proponent and what apple has on their app store is not free market capitalism, its pure rent seeking. Apple users should be able to decide what software and stores run on the device that they own.
  - gretch 2y ago
    > Apple users should be able to decide what software and stores run on the device that they own. They do decide, right when they buy their phone.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - brigadier132 2y ago
      And since we live in a democracy with laws where Apple's current arrangement can be voted to be made illegal, we can also decide to force Apple to open their device ecosystem (which may already be illegal).
DataDive 2y ago
> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? There is a video link on the page from the original post where the Patreon CEO explains and reiterates the issues. Notably, at one point, he says that Apple Platform brings in the most money to Patreon. So there, looks like Apple brings in the money for Patreon. Apple seems to want a cut of that.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > Importantly at one point he says that Apple lpatform brings in the most money to Patreon. I'm not surprised. The dirty little secret people won't talk about is that monetizing anything is so much easier on iOS because Apple users have, in some combination, more disposable income to offer, and are more willing to spend money. This has been the elephant in the room for my entire career, almost 11 years working in apps. Monetizing on Apple is easier. Getting Apple users to put down money for good software is easier, and Apple users will pay more for the software they want. There's a lot of reasons for this, many of them socioeconomic in nature that mark out the differences between your average iPhone user and your average Android user, and I don't want to get into that quagmire and be called elitist: all I'm saying is, when Patreon says the vast majority of patrons are buying from iOS powered devices, between iOS being easier to monetize and the general populace being on their phones far more than their computers; yeah that makes complete fucking sense to me. I believe him.
  - logifail 2y ago
    > I don't want to get into that quagmire I'm not sure it's a quagmire: iOS devices are more expensive compared with the competition. I don't think this is up for debate. Given that, a null hypothesis might be that since their owners are happy to pay more for their device that they have more disposible income?
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      I don't think it's up for debate either, but it doesn't change that a lot of people I've interacted with, online, at work and even at conferences don't like talking about the... differences in monetizing on the two major phone platforms.
Terretta 2y ago
> Does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? This isn't a Creators/Patreon/Apple phenomenon, this is a consumers/distributors/(publishers|labels)/creators phenomenon. See page 12: https://articles.unesco.org/creativity/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/01/2-policy_perspectives_music_en-web.pdf https://articles.unesco.org/creativity/sites/default/files/m...
- danShumway 2y ago
  "Apple isn't being doing anything bad, they're just like the music industry" is a heck of an argument to make. Do you think the average person would argue that the music industry isn't exploitative?
  - Terretta 2y ago
    I didn't make that argument.
    - danShumway 2y ago
      Fair enough, we might be aggressively agreeing with each other. Apologies if I misunderstood you.
xhkkffbf 2y ago
Let's take this to an extreme. Imagine an app that does little except thread together the basic UI components provided by iOS. In other words, something that most people here could write in an afternoon. Now imagine it ends up on the Apple marketplace. Given how much work goes into building iOS, the UX, and the app store, by your argument Apple should get 99.9% of the fees. The person who created the app just spent a few hours and Apple spent bazillions of hours (amortized over many apps).
- danShumway 2y ago
  > by your argument Apple should get 99.9% of the fees No, by my argument, even if someone believes that Apple is somehow morally entitled to a specific level of compensation for running the app store, it is absurd to argue that the amount of work they're putting into making specifically the Patreon app available is higher than the amount of work that was put into building Patreon. If you want to argue that they're not morally entitled to a certain percentage of revenue, great! Then let's talk unemotionally about antitrust, customer steering, and effective market competition without falling into the trap of worrying about whether or not Apple is getting "bullied" by that discussion. The trap that people fall into so often when talking about Apple is trying to set this up like there's a hero and a villain, like people looking at the market are somehow trying to bully Apple out of something it justly deserves. But come on; when you see market effects like this it becomes so much more obvious that if there is any bully here, it's Apple. "You can't reasonably expect Apple to-" Nah, this market outcome is bad. This is not the outcome that most of us want from an app store market. We should do things to make that market more competitive and to curb anti-competitive app-store policies.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  But the app ecosystem is also a selling point for users to actually buy an iPhone, on which they already make a huge margin compared to the rest of the industry.
- bigiain 2y ago
  I wonder how much of the software you're proposing Apple get paid 99.9% for is open source? (Including the xkcd-famous "one guy in Nebraska" who's been doing his thing for over 20 years)? How much do all the contributors of these projects get paid? https://opensource.apple.com/projects/ https://opensource.apple.com/projects/ And all the stuff not listed there too, like OpenSSH, curl, all those little things that pretty much _every_ OS uses? And the predecessors? BSD, Mach, FreeBSD...
gus_massa 2y ago
One important feature is that in the Apple store the consumer is sure that the unsubscribe button works immediately. Not weird tricks to keep you subscribed forever.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  This should be a federal law, and if such button does not exist than a email or letter should be a legally mandated fallback. Taking money after cancellation should be treated as thert
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    I'm in Argentina, I think I subscribed to some app from Spain. I'm not sure if a federal law is enough.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Not to be political, but what a timely comment: https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/new-biden-administration-rule-would-make-canceling-subscriptions-easier-sign-up-gym-streaming-insurance-phone-internet-payment-customers-court-challenges https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/new-biden-administrati...
- danShumway 2y ago
  I hate when companies try to draw out or sidestep attempts to unsubscribe, it's a huge issue with subscription services. I'm really encouraged about recent pushes to ban this kind of behavior. That being said, I've just checked and Patreon does not appear to block or sidestep attempts to unsubscribe from a creator. It's two clicks, you hit "cancel membership" and then the confirm button. I'm open to claims that Apple's system might still be marginally more convenient (you do have to go to the actual creator page in order to unsubscribe, which is a little inconvenient, I guess). But is it so much more convenient that most users would literally pay 30% extra on every one of their subscriptions in order to use it? And even if it is, isn't that something that users should be able to choose as an educated decision instead of it being Apple policy for Patreon to not be allowed to tell users in the app that other payment methods exist?
anomaly_ 2y ago
Only people who have zero understanding of the value of distribution in business would write this. Apple provides tremendous value to app developers.
- danShumway 2y ago
  If we were having this conversation in the late 1800s I'm pretty sure that you would be arguing to me right now that the trans-continental railroad provides "tremendous value" to shippers. It's become an increasingly common argument in discussions about Apple to phrase their value as one of "distribution", or sometimes less subtly as "access." But no one would ever credibly argue that the actual physical distribution costs, hosting, and bandwidth of the Patreon app is more valuable than the entire platform itself. That would be absurd. Instead, what people actually argue is that access to Apple users is the value that Apple quote-unquote "creates"[0]. I think a lot of people look at this and see it for what it is: rent seeking. But it's a marvel of the modern tech landscape that we've trained so many people to not only accept that they are the product for the platforms they use, but taught them to be proud of being a product. We've gotten people to come around to the idea that companies have done such a good job turning them into a product that the companies now somehow deserve some kind of special reward for doing so. Excessive use of customers as bargaining chips inevitably creates bad incentives for companies, which become increasingly defensive of their "assets" and increasingly more and more hostile to consumer choice and freedom to move from ecosystem to ecosystem. These negative effects play out again and again in multiple industries both inside and outside of tech, to the detriment of both consumers and the overall markets. But when tech companies come up (whether we're talking about Apple, or Steam, or Nintendo, or whatever) -- for some weird reason people suddenly become very defensive about the rights of companies to treat them like cattle. TLDR, no, access to iPhone users is not Apple providing value to app developers. It's just rent seeking. ---- [0]: As if iPhone users would somehow stop using smartphones now if the iPhone went away.
  - eltoxo 2y ago
    John D. Rockefeller argued against Standard Oil being broke up on the grounds that it only was so big because it is just that efficient and innovative. It also kept the price of kerosene low for the consumer. If it was broke up it would also hurt the economy overall. They also argued it wasn't really a monopoly and they have other competition lol. Tech companies are such a brilliant monopoly they get the consumer to mindlessly puppet Rockefeller's exact points for them.
cortesoft 2y ago
> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? Well, there is a simple way to test this... just get rid of the Patreon iOS app and just use a web version. Why does patreon need its own app? Why can't it just be web based? I wish fewer companies had apps. I don't need an app for everything. I don't need every hotel I stay at to have their own app, I don't need an app to order food at a restaurant. So why do companies make them? Because people spend more money when they can just use the in app purchase functionality. It is CLEARLY worth the 30% to most companies, because they keep pumping out single use apps that would be better as a mobile web page.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  How many of the apps you're complaining about are paying 30% to Apple? Hotels and restaurants definitely aren't. Also a lot of companies make apps so they can get more tracking info. That value doesn't come from the Apple Store. It's things like games that really get an advantage from being native and in the store. And that's largely a red queen's race, they need to stay on top and they'll pay out the nose to be the easiest install. Paying lots of money in a zero-sum situation doesn't mean they're getting much value in a more zoomed-out sense.
  - dhosek 2y ago
    The ability to get more tracking info comes from producing an app which in turn comes from the Apple Store. I’ve never found myself wanting to use a Patreon app instead of their website, just like I found the substack app a complete waste of space and immediately deleted it. Not everything needs to be an app.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > which in turn comes from the Apple Store I strongly disagree with that. The store is not the reason apps are good for lots of things. You can assign a lot of value to phone and OS, but Apple does not try to take a cut based on making the phone and OS because it would be hard to defend. The store pales in comparison.
Retric 2y ago
Not all parties to a transaction provide value to everyone in a transaction. A union, lawyer, real estate agent, etc is optimizing value for one party but not both. As long as one side of a transaction has a monopoly you can end up with “middlemen” favoring the side that picks them, thus why Ticketmaster still exists. Patroon is chosen by content creators not customers as such its goal is creating value for content creators not customers. As a customer it’s providing negative value with their policies to immediately cancel service the instant someone unsubscribes rather than letting the month play out etc. Thus why their website can be so unbelievably terrible for customers and yet they stay in business. So for customers Apple/Google/whatever may provide literally infinite more value not because it’s significant but because they are on their side.
- danShumway 2y ago
  Does Apple's change do anything at all to help alleviate any of the concerns you have? You have fewer subscriptions options for creators (1st-of-month billing and per-release billing is going away, despite the fact that creators regularly use them to simplify the experience for subscribers). You're going to pay more (I promise you, creators on Patreon are not rich enough to swallow a 30% transaction fee on iOS subscriptions). You're going to use the same app that you were using before. And this will change nothing about when Patreon cuts off service when you unsubscribe (incidentally, I'm pretty sure this is a creator decision and creators can choose to extend benefits to the end of the month). What is Apple doing that is making any of this better for you? Maybe you sort-of marginally have an easier time unsubscribing? But it's not hard to unsubscribe from a Patreon tier, and it's difficult to argue that Apple is providing infinite value by organizing your subscriptions into a list. What are you actually paying this fee to Apple for? They're "on your side" except in the sense where them being on your side creates any tangible or significant change in your experience using Patreon. Seriously, what about the iOS experience using Patreon is better (or even different) than the experience elsewhere?
  - Retric 2y ago
    > is providing infinite value Not infinite value, just any value versus 0 value. IE: infinitely times 0 is less than 0.0000001%. So the same relationship is true if you’re using Firefox to access Patron. Apple charging fees is definitely a reason to drop Apple, but you personally can’t force creators to drop Patron which is why they can be so toxic.
twodave 2y ago
I would probably sooner point out that by far the most money Apple makes off of their platform (and you don’t even have to look this up or have inside knowledge to know it is true) is from a TON of addicts gambling on gacha boxes in pointless video games. They are incentivized by predatory behavior. Edit: seriously, even the casinos and bars will eventually tell you you’re done.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  > and you don’t even have to look this up It wasn't surprising, but having hard facts always helps. Apple v. Epic revealed Apple makes 70% of app store revenue from mobile games, which is generated by less than 10% of app store users: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/apple-vs-epic-70percent-of-app-store-revenue-from-customers-playing-games.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/apple-vs-epic-70percent-of-a...
tshaddox 2y ago
> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? For people who would never give Patreon money by going to Patreon’s website? Sure, why not? That sounds like a niche market that Patreon would be completely unable to participate in without Apple’s help.
- danShumway 2y ago
  Sounds like a fun experiment. I'd be interested in Apple allowing Patreon to test that theory by disabling purchases within the app. Is this really about access to a niche user group of users who would never sign up elsewhere? Apple seems to be very invested in forcing Patreon to either not be in the app store at all (and given the limitations of web apps, this is a significant penalty), or offer exclusively Apple payments in the app. Then Apple goes a step further with rules blocking Patreon showing links to other purchase methods in the app. These are not the actions of a company that believes that its users can be trusted not to make a purchase elsewhere. If these users would never give Patreon money by going to Patreon's website, Apple wouldn't be scared of a link to the website payment options inside of the app. But they are scared of that, because they know that many of their users would choose to pay less online if they were informed about the choice or if Patreon decided not to offer payment options in the app. I think the fact that Apple is (according to Patreon) not offering a choice of whether or not to accept payments in the app pokes a lot of holes in the idea that iOS users would never use a website to subscribe.
  - tshaddox 2y ago
    > These are not the actions of a company that believes that its users can be trusted not to make a purchase elsewhere. Well yeah, the charitable interpretation is that of course Apple thinks their users will have a worse experience on average with subscriptions outside Apple’s ecosystem than inside of it. And it’s hard to disagree!
    - danShumway 2y ago
      So... they would give Patreon money by going to their website? Is this a niche market that would never have been available to Patreon that Apple is helping Patreon access, or is this Apple needing to en-mass protect its users from themselves as a result of them being too.. I don't know, weak willed(?) not to pay for Patreon using another method? It's not both.
classified 2y ago
> fairness does not exist in the market, only competition. The first part is undoubtedly true, but competition doesn't exist here either. That Apple is getting away with their anti-competitive practices is a full-blown scandal.
okeuro49 2y ago
> The market does not have a concept of fairness, only competition. The market exists through legal means, which also include mechanisms for fair competition.
judge2020 2y ago
> for all of the work they're putting into hosting and curating apps and for More for creating the OS, releasing updates for free to all users, and licensing new and existing developer APIs for free to all iOS developers in perpetuity. In lieu of their app store fee you get Unreal Engine-style licensing anyways where a percentage of your revenue becomes subject to royalties.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dbenn8 2y ago
As a small b2c low cost subscription app provider I was initially taken back by the fees of the app/play stores. However, after looking at the competitive international payment processing and tax management solutions available, the fees started to make a lot more sense. Just the fact that there's no transaction fee on top of the percentage they take makes charging a low monthly fee much more competitive. Once you add in not having to think at all about how much tax to charge in each local, how to report on it, etc, the cost side became much more reasonable. And the reduced friction and trust concerns for users when they know it's apple managing their financial data instead of a small business is pretty significant as well as others have pointed out. Would I like to be charged less for all these benefits? OF COURSE. Is the service they provide to smaller businesses with under $1mil in annual revenue a decent ROI? I think it probably is.
audunw 2y ago
I agree that Apple should be pressured to allow alternative modes of payment and/or lower fees in more cases. The duopoly problem you talk about is a real and serious issue. But on this point: > often with the implicit suggestion that Apple "deserves" to be compensated for all of the work they're putting into hosting and curating apps This is a huge misunderstanding about what these fees are actually for. I remember a time when major operating system updates cost a fair bit of money. The kind of free significant feature updates we see for phones these days were almost completely unheard of both in the PC and the phone market. Apple now provides fairly significant feature updates for phones/tablets, going back many years. The App Store business model is what incentivizes this development. Doesn't matter if you don't buy a new phone.. they still make a fair bit of money on you when you use the App Store. The App Store fees are not to cover hosting/review. It's a way to get a continuous revenue stream from the users of their hardware/software. There is only one realistic alternative to this business model: to use more advertising to extract value out of your users.. which is the path Microsoft and Google seems to be heading in. Neither is ideal. But IMO it's good that there are at least two options with different approaches to this, so we have a bit of choice. A third alternative would be going back to paying for major OS updates. But I don't think that business model is viable anymore. People expect free updates.
- danShumway 2y ago
  Currently the majority of Apple's Safari revenue comes from Google search deals. Do you believe that if Apple got rid of those deals, it would be justified in applying similar restrictions in Safari to support development of the browser? What incentivizes them to build a functioning browser? Is it feasible to have an Open web while incentivizing the massive amount of work required to build browsers and web APIs? And if so, what is different about native APIs?
- putlake 2y ago
  I don't know why you are getting downvoted except that your opinion is unpopular in this thread. It's a legit counterargument though. However, speaking for myself as an N of 1, the reason I buy an iPhone is because of the assurance that it will receive updates -- especially security updates -- for several years. Android doesn't seem to hold that promise. My last Android phone was an HTC that came out with this promise of delivering Android updates within 15 days -- a promise they did not keep. https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-25-htc-one-a9-android-update-promise.html https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-25-htc-one-a9-android-updat...

queuebert 2y ago

Kind of like how realtors make more money on a house transaction than the closing attorneys who draw up all the paperwork and execute it legally.

danShumway 2y ago
Or, I would argue, like if a realtor made more money off of the sale than the person selling the house made.
- abfan1127 2y ago
  that is easily true. You buy a house for $500k. A year later, you decide to move. The house's value remains at $500k. Realtor commissions of 6% cost you $30k. You lost $30k on the total transaction, the realtor made $30k (not including the original buy).
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Surely the realtor shouldn't work for $0 just because your investment didn't pan out, though?
  - danShumway 2y ago
    Only on HN would I see someone argue that depreciating or stagnant assets are the same thing as a 30% transaction fee. This community is smart enough to be able to tell the difference between a tax on revenue and a tax on profit. Apple is imposing a tax on revenue that is higher than the revenue that Patreon pulls in from each transaction fee. There is no equivalent situation in a realtor market. In no world would a realtor sell your house for $500k and then tell you that they deserve a higher cut of the revenue than you do.
frumper 2y ago
I don't know if that is a good comparison. Our realtor has spent a lot of hours over the past few years showing us homes and writing up more than a few losing bids. It's not constant attention, but so far it's all unpaid.
- queuebert 2y ago
  One is necessary to have a legal transaction, while the other is rent-seeking. People buy cars all the time without agents. We have excellent websites to educate us about car features and locate cars for sale. Realtors keep their racket going by working with each other to get houses sold, while ignoring FSBO homes. In fact, buyer's agents have a conflict of interest in that they get paid more if you pay more for the house. How people accept this befuddles me.
  - frumper 2y ago
    I’ve never had a realtor suggest an offer price or apply the slightest bit of pressure to offer more. Maybe you should find a new realtor.

Y_Y 2y ago

> It's important to recognize any time that we're talking about the market that services charge what they can, not what is fair. The market does not have a concept of fairness, only competition. This is why there is no such thing as a benevolent monopoly that charges fair prices - because fairness does not exist in the market, only competition. I agree with you that the reality of markets is quite different to the "common sense" model. Unfortunately I rarely find either in the press or just talking to people myself, that anyone gets beyond this kind of price=cost(1+a little incentive) thinking.

AmericanChopper 2y ago

I don't like this action form Apple, but I don't agree with your assessment of market economics here. The problem with "fairness" is that there is no objective measure of it. Everybody evaluates fairness according to how it aligns with their own personal interests. This is one of the key problems a free market economy solves. Price discovery is the intersection of what somebody's willing to sell something for, and what somebody else is willing to pay for it. Both of these parties will have a completely different idea of what's fair. That's why fairness is not a valid price discovery mechanism, and I don't think any free market economist has ever advocated for it.

Waterluvian 2y ago
Would this view conclude that there should never be regulation of any sort? Or is there possibly a level of “fairness” that’s evident to the average person?
- Dracophoenix 2y ago
  Regulation is itself neither objective nor fair. Additionally, regulation is not immune from market pressures as the legal environments and incentives they create are also subject to competition. No nation-state has a monopoly on hospitable business environments. Fairness at its most objective is merely a process. It's not and should not be proselytized as a guarantee of equal outcomes irrespective of circumstances. > Or is there possibly a level of “fairness” that’s evident to the average person? The "average person" does not exist and thus doesn't have an opinion representative of an arbitrary individual or group of individuals. A rational flesh-and-blood person can only speak for himself.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    Oh god how tiresome these libertarians can get. Particularly when they've let their brains be turned into mush by reading too much Ayn Rand, or Mises et al. Hope you grow out of it.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago

riku_iki 2y ago

danShumway 2y ago
This gets brought up a lot in conversations about Apple. In one sense, I agree with it. Patreon is a rent-seeking middleman who abuses network effects. 100%. But the creators on Patreon who's income are going to be most affected by this don't care about which side of the debate is more likeable to you, and I'm kind of sick of pretending that policies that affect a huge swath of people (often people with limited options, virtually no power, and few backup resources) can be treated like popularity contests. The video essayists, programmers, artists, authors, and indies doing weird, wonderful work supported through Patreon get their revenue squeezed even tighter, being forced to either bleed revenue or subscribers due to new fees, being forced to abandon revenue models and subscription models that Apple doesn't like.. and, I mean, honestly, "I hate both companies" just is not a valid or acceptable response to that situation. The solution to rent-seeking middlemen is not to make more of them.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  I am wondering why Apple and Patreon even a thing in this market. Most of the content is distributed through Youtube, so Google can just step in, create patreon interface and cut both of them, get some extra revenue, and be a good guy.
  - iteria 2y ago
    Because not everything is distributed on YouTube. I support writers and artists on patreon. That's the bulk of what I support. Even if we say Google, youtube creators already complain about youtube and how it squeezes them so is it really better? Youtube even has a patreon like thing, but creators prefer to diversify the platforms they are on. Especially if, as is common, what they are selling on patreon are things that aren't allowed on youtube.

cyberax 2y ago

[flagged]

iudqnolq 2y ago
I downloaded the Patreon app to listen to podcasts. Regardless of who is to blame from my perspective their imperfect app provides a better user experience than Firefox or Chrome on my Android phone.
- cyberax 2y ago
  Does it sync them for offline listen? I can do that with Youtube videos in a browser. They could have trivially added that to their website.
  - desert_rue 2y ago
    I was able to get the feed and import it into my favorite podcast app (Overcast). I don’t open the app very often.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >Regardless of who is to blame It's Apple on IOS for not even being able to get a proper web app off the ground. For android, there's probably no primary blame here. But there is financial incentive to produce an app over a mobile website when given a choice.
wkat4242 2y ago
Yeah exactly. Patreon doesn't have to be an app. It would work just fine as a website or even as a progressive web app. There is absoluteluy no need for it except marketing and data collection from the user (the main reason that most platforms say they are 'better in our app'). It's not at all better for the user, it's better for the platform. They can access more data from the user which they can use for marketing. There's the rub. Even without Apple's advertiser ID they can still collect a ton more info than a PWA. It also stops the user from using adblockers in many cases. The thing is: Patreon is a service that's meant to be paid by a small fee included in the donations. There should be no need for them to gather data on their users as well.

brookst 2y ago

> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? I'll bite, kind of. People get emotional about particular companies so let's abstract them away: is it possible for a second-tier distributor to bring more value to a first-tier distributor than the first-tier brings to suppliers? Looking at it that way, sure. It seems obvious. If a local distributor picks up a local product, and then a national distributor buys from the local distributor, it's pretty obvious that the national distributor brings more value. Looping back to the specifics, if Apple was the primary means that people discover Patreon and the creators on it, sure, it would make sense. But for Patreon specifically that's not the case (I think). The economics would suggest that Patreon should do away with their iOS app, focus iOS users on the web, and everyone would be ahead.

baby_souffle 2y ago
> The economics would suggest that Patreon should do away with their iOS app, focus iOS users on the web, and everyone would be ahead. Apple doesn’t let web apps do everything that native apps can do. Their App Store is the only way people get apps on their device and if a search for ‘patreon’ in the App Store returns nothing, that’s a lot of confused or angry people that are going to wonder what their monthly bill is for. Maybe some very low double digit percentage of these people will try to load a pwa from patreon.com
- tensor 2y ago
  What? I have many many many monthly bills that are not iPhone apps. My gas bill may or may not have an iOS app, but I'm sure as hell not confused and angry if it doesn't.
  - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
    Your gas bill is probably charged and billed directly by the gas supplier. People get confused very easily when small digital subscriptions are charged through third parties on behalf of sellers whose name is often different from the app or service. I'm not sure a shop app fixes that though. Better communication and better choice of names seems far more important.

ecjhdnc2025 2y ago

> Another point that Patreon isn't really emphasizing here that seems relevant to any conversations about "fairness" is that Apple's fees on Patreon subscriptions in-app are now higher than Patreon's fees. Unfortunately this is in the nature of suppliers and retailers. Supermarkets make more profit on a litre of milk than farmers. Way way way more. Because they know farmers in practice have to sell _all_ their milk, not just some of it. And what Apple really has, and knows it, is the only supermarket on the main road out of iBorough. And there are no corner shops.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwaway48476 2y ago
Often milk is a 'loss leader' for supermarkets. They put it as far away from the entrance as possible so you have to walk through the whole store.
- rembicilious 2y ago
  Is this really true? Maybe it just makes sense to put high demand refrigerated products in the refrigerated room near the loading dock where the refrigerated trailer is unloaded?
  - fmj 2y ago
    Yeah, I hear people repeat that a lot, but it doesn't entirely align with my experience. A lot of the grocery stores I shop at (mostly Kroger and other national chains,) have a cooler right up front with the most popular dairy/refrigerated items for the people that are just there to pick those up.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      All the Krogers I've been to have had the dairy opposite the entrance.
- 2y ago

xyst 2y ago

It’s time for tech (not just Apple) to be broken up. If only we haven’t defanged the regulatory agencies …

hermitdev 2y ago
> It’s time for tech (not just Apple) to be broken up. If only we haven’t defanged the regulatory agencies … I think you mean we should de-FAANG the regulatory agencies.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
simonh 2y ago
Broken up in what way, and how would it help?
- desert_rue 2y ago
  Generally, the Apple Store would be a separate company from Apple phones. A user gets to choose which store they want to use on their phone. Along with other things like which map app is the default. This way, the different stores could compete - by charging lower fees or offering more services. Like the android store does a bare-bones check of the app and so it only charges 10%. Apple checks every app throughly, so it charges 15%. Some open source store might have 0% fee, have no app checks, no payment processing, and it is 100% on the user not to download infested software.
  - highwaylights 2y ago
    Although I agree in principle, the counter-argument to this is that Apple would ultimately be blamed in the minds of consumers for not keeping those devices protected from bad software. They could say I told you so, but that doesn’t help them after the golden goose of the App Store has already been cooked.
    - 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Fair is what two consenting adults agree to in the market place. >does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? I will. If most apple users refuse to go outside the app store for their content, Than clearly they care more about the ease of access than the content itself. I agree that the high proportion t of take between the two firms says a lot about the state of the market. It also says a lot about the users, and what they care about. I think people are shocked by these outcomes because they aren't used to thinking about transaction costs as meaningful. Transfer, trust, and triangulation are critical parts of an exchange, and their costs can be even greater than the good itself.

brigadier132 2y ago
> Fair is what two consenting adults agree to in the market place. This has been known to not be true since capitalism was first conceived. I am the biggest free market capitalism proponent and what apple has on their app store is not free market capitalism, its pure rent seeking. Apple users should be able to decide what software and stores run on the device that they own.
- gretch 2y ago
  > Apple users should be able to decide what software and stores run on the device that they own. They do decide, right when they buy their phone.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - brigadier132 2y ago
    And since we live in a democracy with laws where Apple's current arrangement can be voted to be made illegal, we can also decide to force Apple to open their device ecosystem (which may already be illegal).

DataDive 2y ago

> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? There is a video link on the page from the original post where the Patreon CEO explains and reiterates the issues. Notably, at one point, he says that Apple Platform brings in the most money to Patreon. So there, looks like Apple brings in the money for Patreon. Apple seems to want a cut of that.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> Importantly at one point he says that Apple lpatform brings in the most money to Patreon. I'm not surprised. The dirty little secret people won't talk about is that monetizing anything is so much easier on iOS because Apple users have, in some combination, more disposable income to offer, and are more willing to spend money. This has been the elephant in the room for my entire career, almost 11 years working in apps. Monetizing on Apple is easier. Getting Apple users to put down money for good software is easier, and Apple users will pay more for the software they want. There's a lot of reasons for this, many of them socioeconomic in nature that mark out the differences between your average iPhone user and your average Android user, and I don't want to get into that quagmire and be called elitist: all I'm saying is, when Patreon says the vast majority of patrons are buying from iOS powered devices, between iOS being easier to monetize and the general populace being on their phones far more than their computers; yeah that makes complete fucking sense to me. I believe him.
- logifail 2y ago
  > I don't want to get into that quagmire I'm not sure it's a quagmire: iOS devices are more expensive compared with the competition. I don't think this is up for debate. Given that, a null hypothesis might be that since their owners are happy to pay more for their device that they have more disposible income?
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    I don't think it's up for debate either, but it doesn't change that a lot of people I've interacted with, online, at work and even at conferences don't like talking about the... differences in monetizing on the two major phone platforms.

Terretta 2y ago

> Does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? This isn't a Creators/Patreon/Apple phenomenon, this is a consumers/distributors/(publishers|labels)/creators phenomenon. See page 12: https://articles.unesco.org/creativity/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/01/2-policy_perspectives_music_en-web.pdf https://articles.unesco.org/creativity/sites/default/files/m...

danShumway 2y ago
"Apple isn't being doing anything bad, they're just like the music industry" is a heck of an argument to make. Do you think the average person would argue that the music industry isn't exploitative?
- Terretta 2y ago
  I didn't make that argument.
  - danShumway 2y ago
    Fair enough, we might be aggressively agreeing with each other. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

xhkkffbf 2y ago

Let's take this to an extreme. Imagine an app that does little except thread together the basic UI components provided by iOS. In other words, something that most people here could write in an afternoon. Now imagine it ends up on the Apple marketplace. Given how much work goes into building iOS, the UX, and the app store, by your argument Apple should get 99.9% of the fees. The person who created the app just spent a few hours and Apple spent bazillions of hours (amortized over many apps).

danShumway 2y ago
> by your argument Apple should get 99.9% of the fees No, by my argument, even if someone believes that Apple is somehow morally entitled to a specific level of compensation for running the app store, it is absurd to argue that the amount of work they're putting into making specifically the Patreon app available is higher than the amount of work that was put into building Patreon. If you want to argue that they're not morally entitled to a certain percentage of revenue, great! Then let's talk unemotionally about antitrust, customer steering, and effective market competition without falling into the trap of worrying about whether or not Apple is getting "bullied" by that discussion. The trap that people fall into so often when talking about Apple is trying to set this up like there's a hero and a villain, like people looking at the market are somehow trying to bully Apple out of something it justly deserves. But come on; when you see market effects like this it becomes so much more obvious that if there is any bully here, it's Apple. "You can't reasonably expect Apple to-" Nah, this market outcome is bad. This is not the outcome that most of us want from an app store market. We should do things to make that market more competitive and to curb anti-competitive app-store policies.
wkat4242 2y ago
But the app ecosystem is also a selling point for users to actually buy an iPhone, on which they already make a huge margin compared to the rest of the industry.
bigiain 2y ago
I wonder how much of the software you're proposing Apple get paid 99.9% for is open source? (Including the xkcd-famous "one guy in Nebraska" who's been doing his thing for over 20 years)? How much do all the contributors of these projects get paid? https://opensource.apple.com/projects/ https://opensource.apple.com/projects/ And all the stuff not listed there too, like OpenSSH, curl, all those little things that pretty much _every_ OS uses? And the predecessors? BSD, Mach, FreeBSD...

gus_massa 2y ago

One important feature is that in the Apple store the consumer is sure that the unsubscribe button works immediately. Not weird tricks to keep you subscribed forever.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
This should be a federal law, and if such button does not exist than a email or letter should be a legally mandated fallback. Taking money after cancellation should be treated as thert
- gus_massa 2y ago
  I'm in Argentina, I think I subscribed to some app from Spain. I'm not sure if a federal law is enough.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Not to be political, but what a timely comment: https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/new-biden-administration-rule-would-make-canceling-subscriptions-easier-sign-up-gym-streaming-insurance-phone-internet-payment-customers-court-challenges https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/new-biden-administrati...
danShumway 2y ago
I hate when companies try to draw out or sidestep attempts to unsubscribe, it's a huge issue with subscription services. I'm really encouraged about recent pushes to ban this kind of behavior. That being said, I've just checked and Patreon does not appear to block or sidestep attempts to unsubscribe from a creator. It's two clicks, you hit "cancel membership" and then the confirm button. I'm open to claims that Apple's system might still be marginally more convenient (you do have to go to the actual creator page in order to unsubscribe, which is a little inconvenient, I guess). But is it so much more convenient that most users would literally pay 30% extra on every one of their subscriptions in order to use it? And even if it is, isn't that something that users should be able to choose as an educated decision instead of it being Apple policy for Patreon to not be allowed to tell users in the app that other payment methods exist?

anomaly_ 2y ago

Only people who have zero understanding of the value of distribution in business would write this. Apple provides tremendous value to app developers.

danShumway 2y ago
If we were having this conversation in the late 1800s I'm pretty sure that you would be arguing to me right now that the trans-continental railroad provides "tremendous value" to shippers. It's become an increasingly common argument in discussions about Apple to phrase their value as one of "distribution", or sometimes less subtly as "access." But no one would ever credibly argue that the actual physical distribution costs, hosting, and bandwidth of the Patreon app is more valuable than the entire platform itself. That would be absurd. Instead, what people actually argue is that access to Apple users is the value that Apple quote-unquote "creates"[0]. I think a lot of people look at this and see it for what it is: rent seeking. But it's a marvel of the modern tech landscape that we've trained so many people to not only accept that they are the product for the platforms they use, but taught them to be proud of being a product. We've gotten people to come around to the idea that companies have done such a good job turning them into a product that the companies now somehow deserve some kind of special reward for doing so. Excessive use of customers as bargaining chips inevitably creates bad incentives for companies, which become increasingly defensive of their "assets" and increasingly more and more hostile to consumer choice and freedom to move from ecosystem to ecosystem. These negative effects play out again and again in multiple industries both inside and outside of tech, to the detriment of both consumers and the overall markets. But when tech companies come up (whether we're talking about Apple, or Steam, or Nintendo, or whatever) -- for some weird reason people suddenly become very defensive about the rights of companies to treat them like cattle. TLDR, no, access to iPhone users is not Apple providing value to app developers. It's just rent seeking. ---- [0]: As if iPhone users would somehow stop using smartphones now if the iPhone went away.
- eltoxo 2y ago
  John D. Rockefeller argued against Standard Oil being broke up on the grounds that it only was so big because it is just that efficient and innovative. It also kept the price of kerosene low for the consumer. If it was broke up it would also hurt the economy overall. They also argued it wasn't really a monopoly and they have other competition lol. Tech companies are such a brilliant monopoly they get the consumer to mindlessly puppet Rockefeller's exact points for them.

cortesoft 2y ago

> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? Well, there is a simple way to test this... just get rid of the Patreon iOS app and just use a web version. Why does patreon need its own app? Why can't it just be web based? I wish fewer companies had apps. I don't need an app for everything. I don't need every hotel I stay at to have their own app, I don't need an app to order food at a restaurant. So why do companies make them? Because people spend more money when they can just use the in app purchase functionality. It is CLEARLY worth the 30% to most companies, because they keep pumping out single use apps that would be better as a mobile web page.

Dylan16807 2y ago
How many of the apps you're complaining about are paying 30% to Apple? Hotels and restaurants definitely aren't. Also a lot of companies make apps so they can get more tracking info. That value doesn't come from the Apple Store. It's things like games that really get an advantage from being native and in the store. And that's largely a red queen's race, they need to stay on top and they'll pay out the nose to be the easiest install. Paying lots of money in a zero-sum situation doesn't mean they're getting much value in a more zoomed-out sense.
- dhosek 2y ago
  The ability to get more tracking info comes from producing an app which in turn comes from the Apple Store. I’ve never found myself wanting to use a Patreon app instead of their website, just like I found the substack app a complete waste of space and immediately deleted it. Not everything needs to be an app.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > which in turn comes from the Apple Store I strongly disagree with that. The store is not the reason apps are good for lots of things. You can assign a lot of value to phone and OS, but Apple does not try to take a cut based on making the phone and OS because it would be hard to defend. The store pales in comparison.

Retric 2y ago

Not all parties to a transaction provide value to everyone in a transaction. A union, lawyer, real estate agent, etc is optimizing value for one party but not both. As long as one side of a transaction has a monopoly you can end up with “middlemen” favoring the side that picks them, thus why Ticketmaster still exists. Patroon is chosen by content creators not customers as such its goal is creating value for content creators not customers. As a customer it’s providing negative value with their policies to immediately cancel service the instant someone unsubscribes rather than letting the month play out etc. Thus why their website can be so unbelievably terrible for customers and yet they stay in business. So for customers Apple/Google/whatever may provide literally infinite more value not because it’s significant but because they are on their side.

danShumway 2y ago
Does Apple's change do anything at all to help alleviate any of the concerns you have? You have fewer subscriptions options for creators (1st-of-month billing and per-release billing is going away, despite the fact that creators regularly use them to simplify the experience for subscribers). You're going to pay more (I promise you, creators on Patreon are not rich enough to swallow a 30% transaction fee on iOS subscriptions). You're going to use the same app that you were using before. And this will change nothing about when Patreon cuts off service when you unsubscribe (incidentally, I'm pretty sure this is a creator decision and creators can choose to extend benefits to the end of the month). What is Apple doing that is making any of this better for you? Maybe you sort-of marginally have an easier time unsubscribing? But it's not hard to unsubscribe from a Patreon tier, and it's difficult to argue that Apple is providing infinite value by organizing your subscriptions into a list. What are you actually paying this fee to Apple for? They're "on your side" except in the sense where them being on your side creates any tangible or significant change in your experience using Patreon. Seriously, what about the iOS experience using Patreon is better (or even different) than the experience elsewhere?
- Retric 2y ago
  > is providing infinite value Not infinite value, just any value versus 0 value. IE: infinitely times 0 is less than 0.0000001%. So the same relationship is true if you’re using Firefox to access Patron. Apple charging fees is definitely a reason to drop Apple, but you personally can’t force creators to drop Patron which is why they can be so toxic.

twodave 2y ago

I would probably sooner point out that by far the most money Apple makes off of their platform (and you don’t even have to look this up or have inside knowledge to know it is true) is from a TON of addicts gambling on gacha boxes in pointless video games. They are incentivized by predatory behavior. Edit: seriously, even the casinos and bars will eventually tell you you’re done.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
> and you don’t even have to look this up It wasn't surprising, but having hard facts always helps. Apple v. Epic revealed Apple makes 70% of app store revenue from mobile games, which is generated by less than 10% of app store users: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/apple-vs-epic-70percent-of-app-store-revenue-from-customers-playing-games.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/apple-vs-epic-70percent-of-a...

tshaddox 2y ago

> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? For people who would never give Patreon money by going to Patreon’s website? Sure, why not? That sounds like a niche market that Patreon would be completely unable to participate in without Apple’s help.

danShumway 2y ago
Sounds like a fun experiment. I'd be interested in Apple allowing Patreon to test that theory by disabling purchases within the app. Is this really about access to a niche user group of users who would never sign up elsewhere? Apple seems to be very invested in forcing Patreon to either not be in the app store at all (and given the limitations of web apps, this is a significant penalty), or offer exclusively Apple payments in the app. Then Apple goes a step further with rules blocking Patreon showing links to other purchase methods in the app. These are not the actions of a company that believes that its users can be trusted not to make a purchase elsewhere. If these users would never give Patreon money by going to Patreon's website, Apple wouldn't be scared of a link to the website payment options inside of the app. But they are scared of that, because they know that many of their users would choose to pay less online if they were informed about the choice or if Patreon decided not to offer payment options in the app. I think the fact that Apple is (according to Patreon) not offering a choice of whether or not to accept payments in the app pokes a lot of holes in the idea that iOS users would never use a website to subscribe.
- tshaddox 2y ago
  > These are not the actions of a company that believes that its users can be trusted not to make a purchase elsewhere. Well yeah, the charitable interpretation is that of course Apple thinks their users will have a worse experience on average with subscriptions outside Apple’s ecosystem than inside of it. And it’s hard to disagree!
  - danShumway 2y ago
    So... they would give Patreon money by going to their website? Is this a niche market that would never have been available to Patreon that Apple is helping Patreon access, or is this Apple needing to en-mass protect its users from themselves as a result of them being too.. I don't know, weak willed(?) not to pay for Patreon using another method? It's not both.

classified 2y ago

> fairness does not exist in the market, only competition. The first part is undoubtedly true, but competition doesn't exist here either. That Apple is getting away with their anti-competitive practices is a full-blown scandal.

okeuro49 2y ago

> The market does not have a concept of fairness, only competition. The market exists through legal means, which also include mechanisms for fair competition.

judge2020 2y ago

> for all of the work they're putting into hosting and curating apps and for More for creating the OS, releasing updates for free to all users, and licensing new and existing developer APIs for free to all iOS developers in perpetuity. In lieu of their app store fee you get Unreal Engine-style licensing anyways where a percentage of your revenue becomes subject to royalties.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dbenn8 2y ago

As a small b2c low cost subscription app provider I was initially taken back by the fees of the app/play stores. However, after looking at the competitive international payment processing and tax management solutions available, the fees started to make a lot more sense. Just the fact that there's no transaction fee on top of the percentage they take makes charging a low monthly fee much more competitive. Once you add in not having to think at all about how much tax to charge in each local, how to report on it, etc, the cost side became much more reasonable. And the reduced friction and trust concerns for users when they know it's apple managing their financial data instead of a small business is pretty significant as well as others have pointed out. Would I like to be charged less for all these benefits? OF COURSE. Is the service they provide to smaller businesses with under $1mil in annual revenue a decent ROI? I think it probably is.

audunw 2y ago

I agree that Apple should be pressured to allow alternative modes of payment and/or lower fees in more cases. The duopoly problem you talk about is a real and serious issue. But on this point: > often with the implicit suggestion that Apple "deserves" to be compensated for all of the work they're putting into hosting and curating apps This is a huge misunderstanding about what these fees are actually for. I remember a time when major operating system updates cost a fair bit of money. The kind of free significant feature updates we see for phones these days were almost completely unheard of both in the PC and the phone market. Apple now provides fairly significant feature updates for phones/tablets, going back many years. The App Store business model is what incentivizes this development. Doesn't matter if you don't buy a new phone.. they still make a fair bit of money on you when you use the App Store. The App Store fees are not to cover hosting/review. It's a way to get a continuous revenue stream from the users of their hardware/software. There is only one realistic alternative to this business model: to use more advertising to extract value out of your users.. which is the path Microsoft and Google seems to be heading in. Neither is ideal. But IMO it's good that there are at least two options with different approaches to this, so we have a bit of choice. A third alternative would be going back to paying for major OS updates. But I don't think that business model is viable anymore. People expect free updates.

danShumway 2y ago
Currently the majority of Apple's Safari revenue comes from Google search deals. Do you believe that if Apple got rid of those deals, it would be justified in applying similar restrictions in Safari to support development of the browser? What incentivizes them to build a functioning browser? Is it feasible to have an Open web while incentivizing the massive amount of work required to build browsers and web APIs? And if so, what is different about native APIs?
putlake 2y ago
I don't know why you are getting downvoted except that your opinion is unpopular in this thread. It's a legit counterargument though. However, speaking for myself as an N of 1, the reason I buy an iPhone is because of the assurance that it will receive updates -- especially security updates -- for several years. Android doesn't seem to hold that promise. My last Android phone was an HTC that came out with this promise of delivering Android updates within 15 days -- a promise they did not keep. https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-25-htc-one-a9-android-update-promise.html https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-25-htc-one-a9-android-updat...