5 ms·

> 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 its

> 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.
    - frabcus 2y ago
      Hmmm - it's been well known and talked about when I've worked for large B2C apps! In London.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  >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. That fact is neither dirty nor secret. I know you were using a figure of speech, but still. Everyone knows it. >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. That's also pretty obvious, and likely because Apple users, whether mobile or computer, tend to spend more per capita on hardware than Windows or Linux users, simply because Apple hardware is more expensive. It was already true on desktop, before laptop, and before mobile, on Apple devices.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  I think another big reason why Apple users are more willing to spend money is because they haven't normalized providing 'free' services the way Google has. But, I think Apple's gradually starting to encroach into pushing it too far though.
ZoomerCretin 2y ago
American-manufactured automobiles bring in the majority of money to drive-thru restaurants too. Should they get a cut of drive-thru restaurants' revenue?
- 1over137 2y ago
  If they were as smart as Apple, they'd probably try!
- DataDive 2y ago
  I think the example is a strawman if American manufactured automobiles were bringing in substantially more money to drive-throughs than Japanese ones - and if American made automobiles had a way to influence where you drive ... I think they would also get a cut from the drive throughs
danShumway 2y ago
"a cut of that" is doing a heck of a lot of work here to handwave the amount they're asking for. A "cut" in this case means such a high percentage of the transaction that if Patreon didn't pass the extra cost on to consumers/creators, they would make negative dollars on each iOS subscription. That really genuinely does not strike you as odd at all? It doesn't strike you as weird or maybe like a possibly negative market effect that Patreon as a platform should be more profitable for Apple than it is for Patreon? I think most people would say that's a signal that something might be going wrong.
prmoustache 2y ago
If you can afford an iphone, you can afford sending money to a number of random strangers without seeing a blip in your monthly budget. That is pretty much the reality.
lapcat 2y ago
> So there, looks like Apple brings in the money for Patreon. Apple users bring in the money for Patreon. I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  >I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for. really solid point. they shouldn't be able to.
- ProfessorLayton 2y ago
  So I'll start by saying that companies like Apple need to be regulated, as they're misusing their market power to the detriment of everyone but them. However, your argument isn't what you think it is. It's extremely common for companies to sell/gatekeep (Or "pimp" as you put it) access to "their" user base. Think credit cards (Amex can charge merchants more as because their users tend to spend more) or even club memberships like Costco (They're certainly not letting telcos sign up users for free.)
  - lapcat 2y ago
    This is a very strange analogy. I didn't buy my credit card. I don't own it. The credit card is just a little piece of plastic, totally useless without the line of credit, i.e, the service provided by the credit card company, in stark contrast with my computers, which can be used quite extensively without the App Store. The credit card company is not gatekeeping "access" to me. I can pay for things with cash, a debit card, a check, etc. If I choose to pay with a credit card, it's because I wish to take advantage of the specific features of the credit card, the primary one of which is the ability to pay for the product later rather than at the moment of purchase.
    - ksec 2y ago

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.
  - frabcus 2y ago
    Hmmm - it's been well known and talked about when I've worked for large B2C apps! In London.
fuzztester 2y ago
>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. That fact is neither dirty nor secret. I know you were using a figure of speech, but still. Everyone knows it. >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. That's also pretty obvious, and likely because Apple users, whether mobile or computer, tend to spend more per capita on hardware than Windows or Linux users, simply because Apple hardware is more expensive. It was already true on desktop, before laptop, and before mobile, on Apple devices.
dotnet00 2y ago
I think another big reason why Apple users are more willing to spend money is because they haven't normalized providing 'free' services the way Google has. But, I think Apple's gradually starting to encroach into pushing it too far though.

ZoomerCretin 2y ago

American-manufactured automobiles bring in the majority of money to drive-thru restaurants too. Should they get a cut of drive-thru restaurants' revenue?

1over137 2y ago
If they were as smart as Apple, they'd probably try!
DataDive 2y ago
I think the example is a strawman if American manufactured automobiles were bringing in substantially more money to drive-throughs than Japanese ones - and if American made automobiles had a way to influence where you drive ... I think they would also get a cut from the drive throughs

danShumway 2y ago

"a cut of that" is doing a heck of a lot of work here to handwave the amount they're asking for. A "cut" in this case means such a high percentage of the transaction that if Patreon didn't pass the extra cost on to consumers/creators, they would make negative dollars on each iOS subscription. That really genuinely does not strike you as odd at all? It doesn't strike you as weird or maybe like a possibly negative market effect that Patreon as a platform should be more profitable for Apple than it is for Patreon? I think most people would say that's a signal that something might be going wrong.

prmoustache 2y ago

If you can afford an iphone, you can afford sending money to a number of random strangers without seeing a blip in your monthly budget. That is pretty much the reality.

lapcat 2y ago

> So there, looks like Apple brings in the money for Patreon. Apple users bring in the money for Patreon. I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for.

fuzztester 2y ago
>I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for. really solid point. they shouldn't be able to.
ProfessorLayton 2y ago
So I'll start by saying that companies like Apple need to be regulated, as they're misusing their market power to the detriment of everyone but them. However, your argument isn't what you think it is. It's extremely common for companies to sell/gatekeep (Or "pimp" as you put it) access to "their" user base. Think credit cards (Amex can charge merchants more as because their users tend to spend more) or even club memberships like Costco (They're certainly not letting telcos sign up users for free.)
- lapcat 2y ago
  This is a very strange analogy. I didn't buy my credit card. I don't own it. The credit card is just a little piece of plastic, totally useless without the line of credit, i.e, the service provided by the credit card company, in stark contrast with my computers, which can be used quite extensively without the App Store. The credit card company is not gatekeeping "access" to me. I can pay for things with cash, a debit card, a check, etc. If I choose to pay with a credit card, it's because I wish to take advantage of the specific features of the credit card, the primary one of which is the ability to pay for the product later rather than at the moment of purchase.
  - ksec 2y ago