10 ms·

Apple vs. the "Free Market"

114 points by jrepinc 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AlexandrB 2y ago
What's the conceptual difference between Apple charging 30% for Patreon subcribers vs. charging 30% for purchases on Temu or the Amazon app? This distinction seems completely arbitrary to me. I suspect the only reason it exists is that adding a 30% Apple surcharge to every Amazon purchase would cause too much outrage. Disclaimer: I've never used Temu or the Amazon app, but I'm assuming they don't apply a 30% surcharge on physical goods on iOS.
- Doches 2y ago
  App Store policy (written or otherwise? It's hard to say.) only levies the 30% on digital goods delivered in the app. Uber, for example, doesn't pay 30% of rider fees to Apple. Patreon is in this weird gray area because you kinda-sorta are getting digital goods delivered via the Patreon app, depending on how you look at it. And obviously if there's a way that Apple can squint and say it falls under their purview, they will...
- brigadier132 2y ago
  > What's the conceptual difference between Apple charging 30% for Patreon subcribers vs. charging 30% for purchases on Temu or the Amazon app? I can name more than 1 competitor to Amazon.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    Of course, but I don't use shopping apps so I don't know who does or does not have an app. Temu just comes to mind because of their dismal reputation and obnoxious marketing.
    - brigadier132 2y ago
      I don't think you get it because you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place if you did. If there is actual competition in a market, the surplus generated by economic transactions is more fairly distributed by the participants in the transaction. When there is competition, businesses also need to compete and improve their products to drive efficiencies (for better margins) and to make the product more attractive to buyers. Because Apple is in a monopoly position, the only way to sell to Apple device users is via their app store. If you want to sell on their App store you need to give apple 30% of revenue. To be clear, Apple does not provide 30% of the value here. This 30% is pure rent seeking, once the app is installed Apple provides 0 value. If you really wanted to equate Apple and Amazon, it would be like Amazon taking 30% of the initial transaction then forcing all revenue generated from products sold on Amazon to give 30% of revenue in perpetuity to them.
      - AlexandrB 2y ago
        At no point was I equating Apple and Amazon. I was asking why Apple doesn't collect 30% from Amazon (which Amazon would naturally pass on to consumers) when people buy goods from Amazon's iOS app. My entire point is that this distinction seems increasingly arbitrary on Apple's part and is perhaps driven by the expected outrage if they tried to pull the same stunt with retailers like Amazon or Temu.
        chii 2y ago
        > driven by the expected outrage if they tried to pull the same stunt with retailers which is pretty good evidence that society should pass a law to disallow apple from doing it (rather than let them pick and choose to charge a subset small enough to bypass public outrage, but still rake in an undeserved tax on apple device users)!
  - II2II 2y ago
    Depending upon how you look at it, there is more than one competitor to Apple. It kinda sucks that most of the competition to iOS runs one operating system, yet that one operating system is supported by multiple hardware vendors and multiple online storefronts. Yet there is also another competitor to Apple on iOS devices. It is called the web. Patreon in no way owes money to Apple if the end user fires up a web browser on their phone and makes their contribution through the website. Argue all that you want about convenience, and you're probably right on that front, but it is a way to circumvent Apple to have more of your contribution delivered to the intended recipient. In the end, the decision of iOS users to support Apple's practices are at issue here. Sometimes you just have to say no using whatever means are at your disposal.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobp100 2y ago
  Digital goods and tips are required to use IAPs and pay the fee. Patreon is either one or the other, or maybe a mix of both. I suspect this has been published more than they anticipated, and they’ll have to allow tips to use external payment systems.
- knowriju 2y ago
  Playing the devil's advocate here, I believe the rational to take 30% cut for only digital goods is that, usually digital goods have zero marginal cost. To 'manufacture' an additional digital asset, the company doesn't need to spend anything extra. This assumption starts breaking as internet becomes more ubiquitous and for anything really outside gaming coins. Example, for every additional Spotify subscriber, Spotify needs to pay music producers as well. The economics is now very close to physical goods being sold in Temu or Amazon.
  - saurik 2y ago
    This doesn't work for Patreon, which often isn't merely about "digital assets": while some people on Patreon might be using it to merely sell access to some digital portfolio, many (I'd even say "most") use it as a form of VIP club system, with direct access to the artist, custom work products, physical swag that you receive in the mail, shoutouts during live shows... Patreon isn't a system that inherently scales with anything close to zero marginal cost, at least for most of the tiers of most of the artists I've seen on the platform.
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  While the blog post stresses the 30% fee, I read the Patreon post that it was responding to. I am subscribed to a couple infrequent but high-quality creators on Patreon who charge by deliverable instead of as a monthly subscription that won't make sense since months may go by without a deliverable. This will make monetization via Patreon unviable for them.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  So it sounds like someone should make a Patreon page that renders a video of someone ordering what you want on Amazon, that will help Apple get a 30% markup on Amazon purchases.
Doches 2y ago
This article reads like an uneducated rant in so, so many ways. Apple rolling over its sleep and squashing Patreon isn't 'enshittification', it's just textbook monopoly abuse. And if you want to rail about the nuance of Apple's business practices you can at least not typo the name of two of their flagship products ("Iphone and Ipad"). > The fact that it's a felony to get your Iphone apps from anyone except Apple means that whatever policies Apple makes for the app store have the force of law. The EC and US DOJ would like a word, please.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  > you can at least not typo the name of two of their flagship products ("Iphone and Ipad") Why not? Are we all beholden to the Apple marketing department style guide?
  - phony-account 2y ago
    > Are we all beholden to the Apple marketing department style guide? He should go the whole hog in this radical stance of civil disobedience and just spell the names entirely wrong!
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      It can certainly be obnoxious (I remember everyone calling Microsoft, M$ in the early 2000s), but if the goal is communicating an idea to an audience spelling it iPhone vs IPhone vs iphone vs Iphone doesn't make a difference. What I don't get is advocating for radical civil obedience to a company's preferred trademark names.
      - jjkaczor 2y ago
        Heh... I hereby submit: ¥phone , ¥pad
      - a_c_s 2y ago
        Calling any of this "radical" is rather dramatic and framing it as "obedience" misses the point. If someone says "My name is spelled e. e. cummings" then writing it "E. E. Cummings" is weird. It feels either uninformed or a deliberate, though tiny, mark of disrespect. It would also be weird to spell the Motorola "Razr" phone's name as "Razor" as that's not the spelling Motorola gave it. It isn't about "obeying" the poet nor the corporation but rather following social norms to spell things as the named person (or the namer of the item) prefers it to be spelled. And if you don't follow this convention then... oh well, most people will probably forget about it seconds after they notice it as they have other things to think about.
brigadier132 2y ago
Apple's product is its users. All of the privacy changes are not to protect the privacy of their users, it's to ensure that there are no ways to access Apple device users without Apple being the middleman.
- marxisttemp 2y ago
  I wouldn’t say all of the privacy changes or even the majority of them are to ensure lock-in, but they have certainly been using their privacy stance as a pretext for lock-in.
  - katzinsky 2y ago
    If Apple cared about privacy ssh would be well supported OOTB and you'd be able to build your apps from the source. There's no way to do this, even if you pay all the fees push notifications won't work unless you publish to the app store and that will get rejected for being a duplicate.
    - marxisttemp 2y ago
      Like all corporations, Apple only cares about making a profit. Their business model let them implement much stronger privacy guarantees than their competitors, and this differentiation has been a profitable avenue for them. But ultimately if there’s any lock-down they can get away with (i.e. without affecting their profits either directly or via fines and legislation) they’ll try it, and privacy/security misfeatures are a great way to couch these regressions without appearing directly hostile. That being said, I don’t think Apple’s privacy stance is all hot air, they publish plenty of white papers on their infrastructure. I mostly think they’re greedy and don’t mind harming the user and developer experience to ensure they get their cut from every transaction that occurs inside their ecosystem.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Which is a great pitch to use Apple devices. The software community seems to hate it but I have a theory that one of the reasons Apple commands such a premium is because regular users don't actually like the software people all that much. Apple protecting user privacy for selfish reasons is a wonderful thing. It means they are going to keep doing it for as long as they can manage until the legislators step in.
brookst 2y ago
[flagged]
- TheCoelacanth 2y ago
  Patreon's fees are reasonable for what it provides. Apple's aren't.
  - tiltowait 2y ago
    My, how the times have changed. When the App Store launched, people praised Apple for its low commission rate.
    - brookst 2y ago
      Remember when authors of boxed software were lucky to get 20% net of sales? I do.
  - boesboes 2y ago
    You have any supporting argument for that? Like why is the one reasonable and the other not?
  - falcolas 2y ago
    Creators disagreed when Patreon last increased their fees (2019), especially since their fee is on top of processing fees. In contrast, Apple's fees are directly in line with their competitors (Sony, Microsoft, Google).
  - brookst 2y ago
    I agree. But that’s a pretty huge goalpost move from “Apple brings no value to these artists”.
- sulam 2y ago
  It’s a completely reasonable rant, and timely. You could write largely the same rant regarding digital books and how Apple advantages itself over competitors when it comes to their “fee” and the distortions this causes in the purchasing experience for those products.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
General computing devices like smartphones should allow users to install whatever they want without any cost or restrictions.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Ok, but then I’ll need another kind of locked-down device provided by a company with enough power to force other strong companies to not be dicks, to do all my actually-important-in-normal-life computer stuff.
  - katzinsky 2y ago
    This isn't a problem on Linux because instead of force you have a small group of maintainers who the users are able to outsource the decision making to. There are other ways to do this which work much much better and don't constrain the user's freedom.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      Fine and dandy until half the software I want and/or need to run requires a root kit or otherwise dangerous access and the alternative is “don’t get to do that thing” where “that thing” may include stuff like communicating with clients or a job interview or whatever. Short of legislation (please! Please just outlaw shitty behavior like this!) you need a platform too big to ignore that prohibits the worst behavior, or you’re gonna be forced to choose between two kinds of loss constantly.
      - katzinsky 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - talldayo 2y ago
        Problem is, this "need" for big platforms is entirely a matter of faith. It's like your "need" for supernatural bed-time stories that explain human suffering and make you feel cozy; they're just tall tales. You're taking this practice entirely on their word, your "proof" that this system works is a backwards understanding of determinism. The only realistic, grounded worldview is to conclude that we don't need fairytales, and that we repeat them as an axiomatic comfort and not a truth. Similar problem pervades with Apple. They have no written obligation to protect you, they've been caught lying about security at the request of larger entities than them. They have no technical obligation to provide a secure experience; no GrapheneOS equivalent exists for iPhone, and Apple sues researchers that attempt to dissect the production build of iOS. They cooperate with governmental bodies worldwide and cannot fend-off state-sponsored attacks even when thousands of personnel are targeted. Default programs like iMessage, Facetime and iCloud Mail are all vulnerable to zero-click exploits. The App Store regularly approves trojan horse variety malware masquerading as brands people trust. Apple's platform security is a veritable trainwreck. If you liken Apple's approach as the diametric opposite of Open Source security, then they are the perfect example of why this mindset fails. There are no half-measures with security, when someone locks your room without giving you the key it's not for your protection. Lord only knows people will argue that the cell door makes them feel safer though. Tall tales, and all that.
adesanmi 2y ago
If Patreon doesn’t like Apple’s rules, they should just take their app off the App Store. All these companies moaning about Apple yet aren’t doing the one thing they have the power to do which is just leave. If they refuse to leave, then they’re admitting that Apple’s platform is providing value to them and they should pay what Apple wants. I support creators on Patreon, what exactly is wrong with just doing everything via their website? The mobile web is a thing, what more do they need for their glorified payments processing platform?
- tvink 2y ago
  Counterpoint, monopolization is not a good thing, and as long as Apple doesn't allow alternative app stores, we can talk about how the value they provide is artificially gatekeeping the devices of over a billion people from running the software they would like. There's not only business in this equation, and historically attacking tech monopolies through legislative power has been more effective than suggestion that businesses exclude themselves from business to make a statement.
  - adesanmi 2y ago
    But they’re not stopping me from supporting creators. I can go to Patreon.com on my iPhone right now and subscribe to any creator without Apple’s fees. If they took their app off the App Store tomorrow I will continue to be able to have all of the functionality because they have a functioning mobile website that allows me to do everything I want to do. The web is a perfectly suitable alternative here and it’s working, so why exactly do they need to be on a store with rules they don’t agree with?
    - mrkramer 2y ago
      >If they took their app off the App Store tomorrow I will continue to be able to have all of the functionality because they have a functioning mobile website that allows me to do everything I want to do. The web is a perfectly suitable alternative here and it’s working, so why exactly do they need to be on a store with rules they don’t agree with? Because majority of the people expect that app exists for everything and because Patreon.com is not just a website, it is a complex web app. And a complex web app usually works better on smartphones when it is in the form of native mobile app than just a website in the internet browser. I think PWAs are the viable future. Native apps are too much problematic when it comes to developing and managing them; taking in consideration you need to wrestle with two monopolistic behemoths like Apple and Google on top of all the technical complexity behind like I said developing and managing them.
FinnKuhn 2y ago
> Every artist, performer and creator on Patreon is about to get screwed out of 30% of their gross revenue, which will be diverted to Apple Stopped reading after the first sentence as this just isn't true. First of all this only affects users who subscribe via the iOS/iPadOS app. Secondly Patreon creators have the option to have the prices for those Apps adjusted so that they receive the same amount of money and Apples fees are just added on top of it. With blank statements like this that just aren't true and seem to only exist to enrage the reader I don't think the rest of the text will be any better and from just skimming it very quickly it just launches into a rant about Apples business practices without much structure and without any context to the claim in the beginning.
- Arkanum 2y ago
  I thought, (although the rules might have changed), that Apple explicitly forbids having different prices between your website and the app, and will kick you out of the store if it finds you doing this?
  - FinnKuhn 2y ago
    According to this article Spotify was charging 30% more on iOS all the way back until 2016 with multiple other prominent examples still existing today, so I don't think that this is true or at least hasn't been true since at least 8 years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/07/08/heres-why-your-apple-app-store-purchases-may-be-a-ripoff/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/07/08/heres-why-...
areoform 2y ago
> Tumblr still remains heavily moderated and heavily censored. Why? Because Apple kept kicking Tumblr out of the App Store on the basis that it contained sexual material, and without Apple users, Tumblr was dead in the water > Apple claims this is merely a matter of "editorial standards," no different from a bookstore deciding not to shelve pornography. The difference is that in this case, Apple can block you from patronizing another bookstore, by forcing you to forfeit the $1,000 you spent on your device and potentially many thousands more in media and data and other switching costs. The question at the heart of this issue is simple; do we own our devices, or not? When I pay $1,400 for a computer, do I own it? If yes, then why does Apple get to decide what I get to watch or not? And why does Apple prevent me from deciding what speech I get to engage with my device or not? The app store is, at its heart, an enabler of totalitarianism. The first link of the chain is forged from the freedom to own your computer for marginal profits, but the rest are forged from your human rights. Do you want Hong Kong to be a democracy? Too bad. Apple removed the application protestors were using to protect themselves from a totalitarian police state, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kong-app.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kon... https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/768841864/after-china-objects-apple-removes-app-used-by-hong-kong-protesters https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/768841864/after-china-objects... Oh are you gay or queer? Too bad. Apple removes apps made for and by LGBTQ+ people in 78% of countries. Everything from niche forums to dating apps. https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-06-14-apple-is-enabling-censorship-of-lgbtq-apps-in-152/ https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-06-14-apple-is-e... Do we own our devices, or do we not?
- KolmogorovComp 2y ago
  Aren’t you free to load any OS you like? Not trying to justify anticompetitive behavior from Apple here, but tired to see people saying ‘do you own it?’ when they really mean ‘does the manufacturer help installing third parties apps on its default OS’.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > Aren’t you free to load any OS you like? Not while the bootloader is locked.
mikehearn 2y ago
"Every artist, performer and creator on Patreon is about to get screwed out of 30% of their gross revenue" Does Apple have access to Patreon creators' gross revenue? I thought they only charged commissions on payments through IAP, which I assumed is only a minority of their overall gross.
detourdog 2y ago
Apple exists within the same free market as it’ customers and competitors. The high customer satisfaction is the lock-in. High customer satisfaction can easily explain the success. The idea that lock-in breeds high customer satisfaction needs to be proven to me. Considering Microsoft’s dominance was cheered on by the Microsoft ecosystem and derided in customer satisfaction is noteworthy to me. Apple has high customer satisfaction and a vocal group that consider the happy customers lemmings. These vocalists believe if Apple got out of the way they could show the happy customers what good really is.
- talldayo 2y ago
  If you're right, what's stopping Apple from providing the same service while also granting fair access to third-parties? If Apple's main product differentiation is customer satisfaction, then in-theory they won't suffer as much from exposure to competition. As we've seen with the App Store on MacOS and AppleTV though, Apple cannot rely on just their premium profile to push a service. If they don't force people through the App Store a-la iOS, they can't get developers to reliably use it.
  - detourdog 2y ago
    Why should Apple do work that isn't part of their business?
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  I think all that is needed is for customers to have the option to see "what good really is"
- pornel 2y ago
  The app ecosystem is the lock-in, and creates a very high bar to entry for other players outside the Apple-Google duopoly. Note that Google has created a dependency on proprietary Google Play Services, and owns the Play Store, so even leveraging AOSP is not sufficient to overcome the barrier to entry. There are two established players. Apple can charge whatever they want, and Google can copy their strategy, because they know users have nowhere else to go (the number of people who will permanently switch to independent degoogled phones is too small to affect the duopolists' business)
sor1nmarkov 2y ago
[flagged]
Timber-6539 2y ago
I don't see the issue here as much as I would like to dunk on the company. All those vendors on Apple's platform can take their wares elsewhere or if they feel so aggrieved they can start a class action motion.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  RTFA
  - Timber-6539 2y ago
    I did.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      > Apple's pristine execution of stage one of enshittification – luring in users, then locking those users in – mean that businesses can't survive without reaching Apple customers
      - Timber-6539 2y ago
        Sensational nonsense.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Tell me how
barryrandall 2y ago
It seems like Apple needs to be split up into separate Services, Devices, and Marketplace companies.
- gigel82 2y ago
  Absolutely, so does Google and Microsoft. How do we make this happen?
  - rekoil 2y ago
    Stop electing corrupt dinosaurs to public office.
- azemetre 2y ago
  Separate the Operating Systems too for good measure.
- paulmd 2y ago
  providing an OS with your computer is pretty much a thing since operating systems (or supervisory programs) have been a thing. like the business model predates the personal computer by at least 25 years or so.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
People really need to read the article before commenting. He explains why there is no choice and why this affects everyone not just Apple users.
pentagrama 2y ago
I agree with some opinions and the sentiment of this article, but in some parts the author, perhaps unintentionally, makes false or misleading claims to simply provoke outrage and demonize Apple. For example: > Every artist, performer and creator on Patreon is about to get screwed out of 30% of their gross revenue, which will be diverted to Apple. This is inaccurate, as not all Patreon subscribers use iOS devices to support creators.

114 points by jrepinc 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

What's the conceptual difference between Apple charging 30% for Patreon subcribers vs. charging 30% for purchases on Temu or the Amazon app? This distinction seems completely arbitrary to me. I suspect the only reason it exists is that adding a 30% Apple surcharge to every Amazon purchase would cause too much outrage. Disclaimer: I've never used Temu or the Amazon app, but I'm assuming they don't apply a 30% surcharge on physical goods on iOS.

Doches 2y ago
App Store policy (written or otherwise? It's hard to say.) only levies the 30% on digital goods delivered in the app. Uber, for example, doesn't pay 30% of rider fees to Apple. Patreon is in this weird gray area because you kinda-sorta are getting digital goods delivered via the Patreon app, depending on how you look at it. And obviously if there's a way that Apple can squint and say it falls under their purview, they will...
brigadier132 2y ago
> What's the conceptual difference between Apple charging 30% for Patreon subcribers vs. charging 30% for purchases on Temu or the Amazon app? I can name more than 1 competitor to Amazon.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  Of course, but I don't use shopping apps so I don't know who does or does not have an app. Temu just comes to mind because of their dismal reputation and obnoxious marketing.
  - brigadier132 2y ago
    I don't think you get it because you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place if you did. If there is actual competition in a market, the surplus generated by economic transactions is more fairly distributed by the participants in the transaction. When there is competition, businesses also need to compete and improve their products to drive efficiencies (for better margins) and to make the product more attractive to buyers. Because Apple is in a monopoly position, the only way to sell to Apple device users is via their app store. If you want to sell on their App store you need to give apple 30% of revenue. To be clear, Apple does not provide 30% of the value here. This 30% is pure rent seeking, once the app is installed Apple provides 0 value. If you really wanted to equate Apple and Amazon, it would be like Amazon taking 30% of the initial transaction then forcing all revenue generated from products sold on Amazon to give 30% of revenue in perpetuity to them.
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      At no point was I equating Apple and Amazon. I was asking why Apple doesn't collect 30% from Amazon (which Amazon would naturally pass on to consumers) when people buy goods from Amazon's iOS app. My entire point is that this distinction seems increasingly arbitrary on Apple's part and is perhaps driven by the expected outrage if they tried to pull the same stunt with retailers like Amazon or Temu.
      - chii 2y ago
        > driven by the expected outrage if they tried to pull the same stunt with retailers which is pretty good evidence that society should pass a law to disallow apple from doing it (rather than let them pick and choose to charge a subset small enough to bypass public outrage, but still rake in an undeserved tax on apple device users)!
- II2II 2y ago
  Depending upon how you look at it, there is more than one competitor to Apple. It kinda sucks that most of the competition to iOS runs one operating system, yet that one operating system is supported by multiple hardware vendors and multiple online storefronts. Yet there is also another competitor to Apple on iOS devices. It is called the web. Patreon in no way owes money to Apple if the end user fires up a web browser on their phone and makes their contribution through the website. Argue all that you want about convenience, and you're probably right on that front, but it is a way to circumvent Apple to have more of your contribution delivered to the intended recipient. In the end, the decision of iOS users to support Apple's practices are at issue here. Sometimes you just have to say no using whatever means are at your disposal.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jacobp100 2y ago
Digital goods and tips are required to use IAPs and pay the fee. Patreon is either one or the other, or maybe a mix of both. I suspect this has been published more than they anticipated, and they’ll have to allow tips to use external payment systems.
knowriju 2y ago
Playing the devil's advocate here, I believe the rational to take 30% cut for only digital goods is that, usually digital goods have zero marginal cost. To 'manufacture' an additional digital asset, the company doesn't need to spend anything extra. This assumption starts breaking as internet becomes more ubiquitous and for anything really outside gaming coins. Example, for every additional Spotify subscriber, Spotify needs to pay music producers as well. The economics is now very close to physical goods being sold in Temu or Amazon.
- saurik 2y ago
  This doesn't work for Patreon, which often isn't merely about "digital assets": while some people on Patreon might be using it to merely sell access to some digital portfolio, many (I'd even say "most") use it as a form of VIP club system, with direct access to the artist, custom work products, physical swag that you receive in the mail, shoutouts during live shows... Patreon isn't a system that inherently scales with anything close to zero marginal cost, at least for most of the tiers of most of the artists I've seen on the platform.
jhanschoo 2y ago
While the blog post stresses the 30% fee, I read the Patreon post that it was responding to. I am subscribed to a couple infrequent but high-quality creators on Patreon who charge by deliverable instead of as a monthly subscription that won't make sense since months may go by without a deliverable. This will make monetization via Patreon unviable for them.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
So it sounds like someone should make a Patreon page that renders a video of someone ordering what you want on Amazon, that will help Apple get a 30% markup on Amazon purchases.

Doches 2y ago

This article reads like an uneducated rant in so, so many ways. Apple rolling over its sleep and squashing Patreon isn't 'enshittification', it's just textbook monopoly abuse. And if you want to rail about the nuance of Apple's business practices you can at least not typo the name of two of their flagship products ("Iphone and Ipad"). > The fact that it's a felony to get your Iphone apps from anyone except Apple means that whatever policies Apple makes for the app store have the force of law. The EC and US DOJ would like a word, please.

AlexandrB 2y ago
> you can at least not typo the name of two of their flagship products ("Iphone and Ipad") Why not? Are we all beholden to the Apple marketing department style guide?
- phony-account 2y ago
  > Are we all beholden to the Apple marketing department style guide? He should go the whole hog in this radical stance of civil disobedience and just spell the names entirely wrong!
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    It can certainly be obnoxious (I remember everyone calling Microsoft, M$ in the early 2000s), but if the goal is communicating an idea to an audience spelling it iPhone vs IPhone vs iphone vs Iphone doesn't make a difference. What I don't get is advocating for radical civil obedience to a company's preferred trademark names.
    - jjkaczor 2y ago
      Heh... I hereby submit: ¥phone , ¥pad
    - a_c_s 2y ago
      Calling any of this "radical" is rather dramatic and framing it as "obedience" misses the point. If someone says "My name is spelled e. e. cummings" then writing it "E. E. Cummings" is weird. It feels either uninformed or a deliberate, though tiny, mark of disrespect. It would also be weird to spell the Motorola "Razr" phone's name as "Razor" as that's not the spelling Motorola gave it. It isn't about "obeying" the poet nor the corporation but rather following social norms to spell things as the named person (or the namer of the item) prefers it to be spelled. And if you don't follow this convention then... oh well, most people will probably forget about it seconds after they notice it as they have other things to think about.

brigadier132 2y ago

Apple's product is its users. All of the privacy changes are not to protect the privacy of their users, it's to ensure that there are no ways to access Apple device users without Apple being the middleman.

marxisttemp 2y ago
I wouldn’t say all of the privacy changes or even the majority of them are to ensure lock-in, but they have certainly been using their privacy stance as a pretext for lock-in.
- katzinsky 2y ago
  If Apple cared about privacy ssh would be well supported OOTB and you'd be able to build your apps from the source. There's no way to do this, even if you pay all the fees push notifications won't work unless you publish to the app store and that will get rejected for being a duplicate.
  - marxisttemp 2y ago
    Like all corporations, Apple only cares about making a profit. Their business model let them implement much stronger privacy guarantees than their competitors, and this differentiation has been a profitable avenue for them. But ultimately if there’s any lock-down they can get away with (i.e. without affecting their profits either directly or via fines and legislation) they’ll try it, and privacy/security misfeatures are a great way to couch these regressions without appearing directly hostile. That being said, I don’t think Apple’s privacy stance is all hot air, they publish plenty of white papers on their infrastructure. I mostly think they’re greedy and don’t mind harming the user and developer experience to ensure they get their cut from every transaction that occurs inside their ecosystem.
roenxi 2y ago
Which is a great pitch to use Apple devices. The software community seems to hate it but I have a theory that one of the reasons Apple commands such a premium is because regular users don't actually like the software people all that much. Apple protecting user privacy for selfish reasons is a wonderful thing. It means they are going to keep doing it for as long as they can manage until the legislators step in.

brookst 2y ago

[flagged]

TheCoelacanth 2y ago
Patreon's fees are reasonable for what it provides. Apple's aren't.
- tiltowait 2y ago
  My, how the times have changed. When the App Store launched, people praised Apple for its low commission rate.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Remember when authors of boxed software were lucky to get 20% net of sales? I do.
- boesboes 2y ago
  You have any supporting argument for that? Like why is the one reasonable and the other not?
- falcolas 2y ago
  Creators disagreed when Patreon last increased their fees (2019), especially since their fee is on top of processing fees. In contrast, Apple's fees are directly in line with their competitors (Sony, Microsoft, Google).
- brookst 2y ago
  I agree. But that’s a pretty huge goalpost move from “Apple brings no value to these artists”.
sulam 2y ago
It’s a completely reasonable rant, and timely. You could write largely the same rant regarding digital books and how Apple advantages itself over competitors when it comes to their “fee” and the distortions this causes in the purchasing experience for those products.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

General computing devices like smartphones should allow users to install whatever they want without any cost or restrictions.

vundercind 2y ago
Ok, but then I’ll need another kind of locked-down device provided by a company with enough power to force other strong companies to not be dicks, to do all my actually-important-in-normal-life computer stuff.
- katzinsky 2y ago
  This isn't a problem on Linux because instead of force you have a small group of maintainers who the users are able to outsource the decision making to. There are other ways to do this which work much much better and don't constrain the user's freedom.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Fine and dandy until half the software I want and/or need to run requires a root kit or otherwise dangerous access and the alternative is “don’t get to do that thing” where “that thing” may include stuff like communicating with clients or a job interview or whatever. Short of legislation (please! Please just outlaw shitty behavior like this!) you need a platform too big to ignore that prohibits the worst behavior, or you’re gonna be forced to choose between two kinds of loss constantly.
    - katzinsky 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - talldayo 2y ago
      Problem is, this "need" for big platforms is entirely a matter of faith. It's like your "need" for supernatural bed-time stories that explain human suffering and make you feel cozy; they're just tall tales. You're taking this practice entirely on their word, your "proof" that this system works is a backwards understanding of determinism. The only realistic, grounded worldview is to conclude that we don't need fairytales, and that we repeat them as an axiomatic comfort and not a truth. Similar problem pervades with Apple. They have no written obligation to protect you, they've been caught lying about security at the request of larger entities than them. They have no technical obligation to provide a secure experience; no GrapheneOS equivalent exists for iPhone, and Apple sues researchers that attempt to dissect the production build of iOS. They cooperate with governmental bodies worldwide and cannot fend-off state-sponsored attacks even when thousands of personnel are targeted. Default programs like iMessage, Facetime and iCloud Mail are all vulnerable to zero-click exploits. The App Store regularly approves trojan horse variety malware masquerading as brands people trust. Apple's platform security is a veritable trainwreck. If you liken Apple's approach as the diametric opposite of Open Source security, then they are the perfect example of why this mindset fails. There are no half-measures with security, when someone locks your room without giving you the key it's not for your protection. Lord only knows people will argue that the cell door makes them feel safer though. Tall tales, and all that.

adesanmi 2y ago

If Patreon doesn’t like Apple’s rules, they should just take their app off the App Store. All these companies moaning about Apple yet aren’t doing the one thing they have the power to do which is just leave. If they refuse to leave, then they’re admitting that Apple’s platform is providing value to them and they should pay what Apple wants. I support creators on Patreon, what exactly is wrong with just doing everything via their website? The mobile web is a thing, what more do they need for their glorified payments processing platform?

tvink 2y ago
Counterpoint, monopolization is not a good thing, and as long as Apple doesn't allow alternative app stores, we can talk about how the value they provide is artificially gatekeeping the devices of over a billion people from running the software they would like. There's not only business in this equation, and historically attacking tech monopolies through legislative power has been more effective than suggestion that businesses exclude themselves from business to make a statement.
- adesanmi 2y ago
  But they’re not stopping me from supporting creators. I can go to Patreon.com on my iPhone right now and subscribe to any creator without Apple’s fees. If they took their app off the App Store tomorrow I will continue to be able to have all of the functionality because they have a functioning mobile website that allows me to do everything I want to do. The web is a perfectly suitable alternative here and it’s working, so why exactly do they need to be on a store with rules they don’t agree with?
  - mrkramer 2y ago
    >If they took their app off the App Store tomorrow I will continue to be able to have all of the functionality because they have a functioning mobile website that allows me to do everything I want to do. The web is a perfectly suitable alternative here and it’s working, so why exactly do they need to be on a store with rules they don’t agree with? Because majority of the people expect that app exists for everything and because Patreon.com is not just a website, it is a complex web app. And a complex web app usually works better on smartphones when it is in the form of native mobile app than just a website in the internet browser. I think PWAs are the viable future. Native apps are too much problematic when it comes to developing and managing them; taking in consideration you need to wrestle with two monopolistic behemoths like Apple and Google on top of all the technical complexity behind like I said developing and managing them.

FinnKuhn 2y ago

> Every artist, performer and creator on Patreon is about to get screwed out of 30% of their gross revenue, which will be diverted to Apple Stopped reading after the first sentence as this just isn't true. First of all this only affects users who subscribe via the iOS/iPadOS app. Secondly Patreon creators have the option to have the prices for those Apps adjusted so that they receive the same amount of money and Apples fees are just added on top of it. With blank statements like this that just aren't true and seem to only exist to enrage the reader I don't think the rest of the text will be any better and from just skimming it very quickly it just launches into a rant about Apples business practices without much structure and without any context to the claim in the beginning.

Arkanum 2y ago
I thought, (although the rules might have changed), that Apple explicitly forbids having different prices between your website and the app, and will kick you out of the store if it finds you doing this?
- FinnKuhn 2y ago
  According to this article Spotify was charging 30% more on iOS all the way back until 2016 with multiple other prominent examples still existing today, so I don't think that this is true or at least hasn't been true since at least 8 years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/07/08/heres-why-your-apple-app-store-purchases-may-be-a-ripoff/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/07/08/heres-why-...

areoform 2y ago

> Tumblr still remains heavily moderated and heavily censored. Why? Because Apple kept kicking Tumblr out of the App Store on the basis that it contained sexual material, and without Apple users, Tumblr was dead in the water > Apple claims this is merely a matter of "editorial standards," no different from a bookstore deciding not to shelve pornography. The difference is that in this case, Apple can block you from patronizing another bookstore, by forcing you to forfeit the $1,000 you spent on your device and potentially many thousands more in media and data and other switching costs. The question at the heart of this issue is simple; do we own our devices, or not? When I pay $1,400 for a computer, do I own it? If yes, then why does Apple get to decide what I get to watch or not? And why does Apple prevent me from deciding what speech I get to engage with my device or not? The app store is, at its heart, an enabler of totalitarianism. The first link of the chain is forged from the freedom to own your computer for marginal profits, but the rest are forged from your human rights. Do you want Hong Kong to be a democracy? Too bad. Apple removed the application protestors were using to protect themselves from a totalitarian police state, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kong-app.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kon... https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/768841864/after-china-objects-apple-removes-app-used-by-hong-kong-protesters https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/768841864/after-china-objects... Oh are you gay or queer? Too bad. Apple removes apps made for and by LGBTQ+ people in 78% of countries. Everything from niche forums to dating apps. https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-06-14-apple-is-enabling-censorship-of-lgbtq-apps-in-152/ https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-06-14-apple-is-e... Do we own our devices, or do we not?

KolmogorovComp 2y ago
Aren’t you free to load any OS you like? Not trying to justify anticompetitive behavior from Apple here, but tired to see people saying ‘do you own it?’ when they really mean ‘does the manufacturer help installing third parties apps on its default OS’.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > Aren’t you free to load any OS you like? Not while the bootloader is locked.

mikehearn 2y ago

"Every artist, performer and creator on Patreon is about to get screwed out of 30% of their gross revenue" Does Apple have access to Patreon creators' gross revenue? I thought they only charged commissions on payments through IAP, which I assumed is only a minority of their overall gross.

detourdog 2y ago

Apple exists within the same free market as it’ customers and competitors. The high customer satisfaction is the lock-in. High customer satisfaction can easily explain the success. The idea that lock-in breeds high customer satisfaction needs to be proven to me. Considering Microsoft’s dominance was cheered on by the Microsoft ecosystem and derided in customer satisfaction is noteworthy to me. Apple has high customer satisfaction and a vocal group that consider the happy customers lemmings. These vocalists believe if Apple got out of the way they could show the happy customers what good really is.

talldayo 2y ago
If you're right, what's stopping Apple from providing the same service while also granting fair access to third-parties? If Apple's main product differentiation is customer satisfaction, then in-theory they won't suffer as much from exposure to competition. As we've seen with the App Store on MacOS and AppleTV though, Apple cannot rely on just their premium profile to push a service. If they don't force people through the App Store a-la iOS, they can't get developers to reliably use it.
- detourdog 2y ago
  Why should Apple do work that isn't part of their business?
Workaccount2 2y ago
I think all that is needed is for customers to have the option to see "what good really is"
pornel 2y ago
The app ecosystem is the lock-in, and creates a very high bar to entry for other players outside the Apple-Google duopoly. Note that Google has created a dependency on proprietary Google Play Services, and owns the Play Store, so even leveraging AOSP is not sufficient to overcome the barrier to entry. There are two established players. Apple can charge whatever they want, and Google can copy their strategy, because they know users have nowhere else to go (the number of people who will permanently switch to independent degoogled phones is too small to affect the duopolists' business)

sor1nmarkov 2y ago

[flagged]

Timber-6539 2y ago

I don't see the issue here as much as I would like to dunk on the company. All those vendors on Apple's platform can take their wares elsewhere or if they feel so aggrieved they can start a class action motion.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
RTFA
- Timber-6539 2y ago
  I did.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    > Apple's pristine execution of stage one of enshittification – luring in users, then locking those users in – mean that businesses can't survive without reaching Apple customers
    - Timber-6539 2y ago
      Sensational nonsense.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Tell me how

barryrandall 2y ago

It seems like Apple needs to be split up into separate Services, Devices, and Marketplace companies.

gigel82 2y ago
Absolutely, so does Google and Microsoft. How do we make this happen?
- rekoil 2y ago
  Stop electing corrupt dinosaurs to public office.
azemetre 2y ago
Separate the Operating Systems too for good measure.
paulmd 2y ago
providing an OS with your computer is pretty much a thing since operating systems (or supervisory programs) have been a thing. like the business model predates the personal computer by at least 25 years or so.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

People really need to read the article before commenting. He explains why there is no choice and why this affects everyone not just Apple users.

pentagrama 2y ago

I agree with some opinions and the sentiment of this article, but in some parts the author, perhaps unintentionally, makes false or misleading claims to simply provoke outrage and demonize Apple. For example: > Every artist, performer and creator on Patreon is about to get screwed out of 30% of their gross revenue, which will be diverted to Apple. This is inaccurate, as not all Patreon subscribers use iOS devices to support creators.