24 ms·

Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

• stainablesteel 9mo ago
  with the direction their hardware is going, that's not going to last another decade
• HWR_14 9mo ago
  4% of Patreon iOS users. That's how many use the legacy system Apple is insisting they remove. The other 96% already are using IAP.
  • didntcheck 9mo ago
    > Patreon gives creators the option to either increase their prices in the iOS app only, or absorb the fee themselves, keeping prices the same across platforms. I'm curious what percentage of creators chose which
  • hu3 9mo ago
    Which makes it even more petty coming from Apple.
    • slater 9mo ago
      Money number must go up!
• ajam1507 9mo ago
  This is obscene.
• leoh 9mo ago
  Sad, mean, and pointless
  • advisedwang 9mo ago
    Apple needs this to stay afloat, you know
    • Gualdrapo 9mo ago
      Knowing there are Apple fanboys around HN (I got downvoted for saying the liquid glass thing and the iphone air were pointless) I fear they will take your comment seriously
      • leoh 9mo ago
        I am serious though
    • jojobas 9mo ago
      Poe's law hit me hard.
      • advisedwang 9mo ago
        Some people say that Apple is wildly profitable and has more money than it can spend. But if profit goes down, even if it remains huge, then Apple stock takes a blow. And stockholders are who really this is all about. So really increasing profit a few percent a year is truly just barely keeping the head above the water.
        • jojobas 9mo ago
          Wait, you were serious?
    • SchemaLoad 9mo ago
      Those greedy artists and creators depriving Apple of their profits.
• legitster 9mo ago
  This means Apple is literally going to take nearly 3x in fees from Patreon's customers than Patreon is taking from their own customers. My understanding is that the reason the number 30% is so magical is a historical anomaly. When software was physically distributed back in the day, 15% of the MSRP was reserved for the distributor and another 15% for the retailer. When these digital marketplaces were set up, the companies just said "well, we're the distributor and the retailer, so we'll keep both". Forgetting the fact that the cost to distribute and retail the software is literally pennies on the dollar of what it used to be. I think the irony in this case is that this is a greed problem of their own making. When Steve Jobs announced that apps on the original iPhone would only be $1-$3, he set off the first enshittification crisis in the software industry. In 2008, Bejeweled cost $19.99 if you wanted to buy it on the PC. On the iPhone it was $0.99! This artificially low anchor price is what kicked off the adoption of ad and subscription driven software models in the first place.
  • bryanlarsen 9mo ago
    My understanding was that the retailer margin was 50% and the distributor margin was 10%. So Apple/Steam/etc went "half of 60% is a great deal". Of course the retailer margin is never actually 50%. That's theoretical if 100% of product is sold at MSRP. Actual retail margins are about 25% because of sales, write-offs, et cetera. OTOH when there's a sale in Steam, they still get their full cut (of the reduced price).
    • legitster 9mo ago
      From what I could find, it does seem that major retailers back in the day (CompUSA, Circuit City, etc) were only making 15% margin on software sales. This is much lower than other product categories - but also software didn't take up much floor space.
      • gdilla 9mo ago
        its agency model vs retail model. Recall - Amazon hated the agency model, where the publisher sets the price (and 30% cut goes to app store - Jobs sold this as amazing deal). Retail model the retailer sets the price, and the publisher is guaranteed the wholesale price. Amazon preferred the latter because they competed on dynamic price setting. this was so long ago we forget.
• jmclnx 9mo ago
  I thought that already happened :) But from past threads in a Linux Forum, seems this only applies to people using the Apple IOS App for Patreon. Not sure if using Apple Laptops. But if you use Patreon's WEB Site directly, the fee cannot be collected by Apple. That was my take anyways.
  • repeekad 9mo ago
    I can’t remember being more enraged than when I learned my YouTube premium was more expensive per month than it needed to be because I had signed up on iPhone, so many people wasting money every month, and YouTube isn’t allowed to mention the option to pay on web If they weren’t a public company, you’d think they were the mob. I’ll never trust the Apple ecosystem ever again
  • volemo 9mo ago
    > But from past threads in a Linux Forum, seems this only applies to people using the Apple IOS App for Patreon. Not sure if using Apple Laptops. But if you use Patreon's WEB Site directly, the fee cannot be collected by Apple. Moreover, the fee only applies to the subscriptions made using Apple's payment system. That being said, in most jurisdictions their payment system is the only one developers can use in an app. IMHO, this is the real problem.
  • jajuuka 9mo ago
    Yep, the tax comes from using the Patreon's in-app purchase system. Using a browser on an iPhone/iPad or any other device will not be taxed. Seen many creators putting in their bios suggesting people use the browser instead of the in app purchase. Patreon fought this for a while but Apple has all the leverage unfortunately.
  • plorkyeran 9mo ago
    Per the article it's already happened for 96% of creators and this is the deadline for the remaining 4%.
  • krzat 9mo ago
    > But if you use Patreon's WEB Site directly, the fee cannot be collected by Apple. Yet. Apple forces a specific browser engine on all apps, so they have the means to block patreon website too.
• joshstrange 9mo ago
  When the App Store first launched I think 30% was pretty fair fee for Apple to collect, but that was a long time ago, and before IAP/Subscriptions. Apple might still be entitled to some percentage but they've expanded to cover more and more things (like this Patreon change or Kindle back in the day) and now we have moved far, far beyond the pale. Apple (perhaps like all corporations but I'm focusing on Apple) is a greedy company that has massively lost it's way. Tim Cook support fascists and/or anything to improve the bottom line, especially if it increases "services" [0]. Alan Dye (thank god he is now busy screwing up Meta) shipped the worst UI revamp I've seen in a while from a company Apple's size and the iOS/iPadOS/visionOS/macOS software is all in dire straits. And they managed to do all of this while alienating developers left and right and playing chicken with governments around the world [0] instead of relaxing their hold on their platforms. But who cares? The stock price went up. /s I was overjoyed to see Alan Dye leave (and Jony Ive) and hope that we don't have to wait too much longer to bid Tim Cook adieu. Whoever takes over next has a lot of work ahead to dig out of the hole Tim Cook dug for Apple. Tim Cook might be the best thing for shareholders but he has been horrible for product quality (software and hardware) and for democracy. [0] Pay no attention to how much of services revenue came from the Google search deal with the majority of the rest coming from casinos for children and adults alike. [1] Like the EU DMA, which, I have publicly and privately voiced my dislike of parts of it but Apple has no one to blame but themselves. By keeping a white-knuckle grip on their revenue they forced governments across the world to pass laws (often bad IMHO) that fragment and confuse the entire iOS market.
  • godzillabrennus 9mo ago
    Tim Cook has been horrible for software, but the hardware under his regime has been incredible.
    • joshstrange 9mo ago
      May I introduce you to years he let Jony Ive control that. Which brought us things like the butterfly keyboard, thinness at all costs (battery life), and loss of ports (in part due to thinness) that had to be walked back.
• idontwantthis 9mo ago
  Isn’t this what Epic just sued and won over?
  • HDThoreaun 9mo ago
    Epic didnt really win. If i recall correctly the ruling ended up being that 3rd party payment processors are allowed but 27% of app revenue is still owed to apple if that route is taken. So you can save 3% by using 3rd party payment processing but thats around how much those services cost anyway so no real saving
    • ceejayoz 9mo ago
      They tried that. The judge, correctly, went "uh the fuck you will". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple > While Apple implemented App Store policies to allow developers to link to alternative payment options, the policies still required the developer to provide a 27% revenue share back to Apple, and heavily restricted how they could be shown in apps. Epic filed complaints that these changes violated the ruling, and in April 2025 Rogers found for Epic that Apple had willfully violated her injunction, placing further restrictions on Apple including banning them from collecting revenue shares from non-Apple payment methods or imposing any restrictions on links to such alternative payment options. Though Apple is appealing this latest ruling, they approved the return of Fortnite with its third-party payment system to the App Store in May 2025.
      • anonymous908213 9mo ago
        That judge's ruling was essentially overturned last month on appeal. > Even though Apple was no longer prohibiting linked-out purchases, the district court held that this new approach effectively prohibited linked-out purchases, and it violated the spirit of the injunction. The district court then enjoined Apple from imposing any commission or fee on linked-out purchases. However, the Ninth Circuit panel found that the complete ban was overbroad and punitive. Apple should be permitted to charge a commission based on costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for its coordination of external links and linked-out purchases, but not more. "Genuinely and reasonably necessary", not being defined, will naturally be taken by Apple's malicious compliance department to mean "26%", I'm sure, and we'll get to enjoy a continued round of show trials in court with no meaningful effect for years to come.
• hiprob 9mo ago
  What are you going to do about it? Use Android?
  • esseph 9mo ago
    GrapheneOS
    • tasty_freeze 9mo ago
      It is more clunky and less polished than android. On the other hand, it is far more secure. I was a user of android for 15+ years, and I had been using a pixel 4a when the battery issue came up last year. Google handled that so terribly I bought a used pixel 7a and installed Graphene. Installation is quite easy. The lack of native voice-to-text was a pain; I installed a 3rd party utility (FUTO) for that, but unlike the native one where it translates while you talk, FUTO waits for you to finish then translates everything. The messaging app is less integrated too. Android finally fixed things up with Apple such that emoji responses (heart, thumbs up, +1, etc) would appear as an annotation after the text message I sent, but now I'm back to getting "So and so likes your comment <full text of my comment>". Some of the other pain was because I have tried to cut down on other google properties. I use "here we go" for mapping instead of google maps. Due to the scale of things, the real time traffic updates on google maps is far better than on here we go. I use fastmail instead of gmail and I'm 100% happy with that solution.
  • tcoff91 9mo ago
    launch an in-app browser and don't use apple as the payment processor. The Epic v Apple lawsuit verdict makes this allowed now.
    • 1v1id 9mo ago
      My understanding was that you could have a button that could take the user outside of the app to pay (i.e. your website). So progress, but not this level of freedom yet.
  • teejmya 9mo ago
• ethanrutherford 9mo ago
  Always hated apple for their putrid business practices. Add this to the pile.
  • leokennis 9mo ago
    Apple making sure to stay in lock step with the US' general decline into late stage capitalist decline.
    • 936966931646863 9mo ago
      [flagged]
    • jama211 9mo ago
      When one person acts up it’s a person problem. When everyone acts up it’s a system problem.
  • intothemild 9mo ago
    The Services version of apple is the worst. Tim Cook might actually be the worst ceo apples had
    • tclancy 9mo ago
      The Nineties would like a word.
  • vlod 9mo ago
    I've been trying to find a decent 16'' laptop (to replace my thinkpad x1 carbon). Been running linux (popos) for donkey years and I entertained the thought I should go back to Apple and get the MacbookPro-16 (which is probably the best laptop you can buy imho). Then I remembered all this crap that Apple does and dismissed it.
    • nyantaro1 9mo ago
      A few years ago I got the m1 macbook air (lovely hardware!). Some software update fully bricked it, which is really annoying already. Then I found out the only way to restore it was to connect it to another macbook. That was it for me.
• thisislife2 9mo ago
  I call this the Apple "idiot tax" - 'cos you have to be an idiot in letting Apple exploit you (the developer and the user) this brazenly.
  • dymk 9mo ago
    Victim blaming
    • dpc_01234 9mo ago
      Oh, now ios users are an oppressed group. How cute.
      • mort96 9mo ago
        Being a victim and being an oppressed group are not the same thing...
    • thisislife2 9mo ago
      Every time you spend money, you are casting a vote for the kind of world you want. - Don't most of you here tell me that corporates don't need regulations as smart people "vote with their wallet"? If this is what some want to spend money on, the term "idiot" sounds justified ... anyway, the point was not to offend; just to embarrass some mildly to introspect their purchasing decision.
  • mort96 9mo ago
    This is counterproductive. The only alternative to letting Apple exploit you is letting Google exploit you. There are differences, Google is somewhat better on this specific point, but there's enough things Google is worse at (such as privacy) that choosing Google isn't exactly without downsides. Your mindset results in Apple users thinking "the problem is those stupid Android idiots who accept being in an ad tech company's spyware garden" and Android users thinking "the problem is those stupid Apple idiots who accept that 30% of literally everything they do goes to Apple". In reality, we have a common enemy in the big tech duopoly and extremely lacklustre regulation which lets them keep doing this shit. You calling me an idiot for making a different shitty trade-off than you helps nobody.
• frizlab 9mo ago
  I think it’s not that simple. These are not my words and I cannot only post the link [0] as the author uses the referrer to hide his articles from HN, but here’s the text: Once again, Patreon is going to strong-arm all of us into "charge at the moment of sign-up" instead of "charge on the first of the month." They have wanted this for years, and once again they are saying that Apple has given them cover to demand it. Here's what I wrote when they tried to pull this shit a year and a half ago and then chickened out: Patreon has two billing models, monthly (bills on the first of the month, or whenever they get around to it) and daily (charges you the moment you sign up.) For several years now, they have been trying really hard to get creators to switch to daily billing whether they like it or not, with a series of intrusive nags and dark patterns. E.g., the "Settings" tab always has an "unread" alert on it reminding me that I have not made the "recommended" change. Now they're going to force everyone to switch, and they're blaming Apple for it. And, to be clear, fuck Apple, but also fuck Patreon, this is their choice and it's going to mean that I can no longer use their service. Here's a support request I just sent them, again, after clicking 15 levels deep into their FAQ before finding the thing that might contact a human. Since the email alerting me of this change came from a "noreply" address because of course it did. Feel free to send your own: --- Subject: Subscription billing is unacceptable You recently sent mail saying that you're going to force me to switch from monthly billing to subscription billing. Subscription billing is unacceptable for my Patreon. It does not work. I sell monthly memberships to a physical nightclub. The memberships begin on the first of the month. I fulfill and mail the physical membership cards on the first of the month. If you make me switch to daily billing, that means I will have to do merch fulfillment on a daily basis instead, and I simply cannot do that. If you force me to switch from a monthly cycle to a daily cycle I will have no choice but to stop using Patreon. To be clear: I do not give a shit about the iOS app. Not one fractional fuck is given. If the solution to this problem is that people cannot sign up for, or access, my Patreon from the iOS app, that is 100% acceptable to me. I know for a fact that none -- zero, 0% -- of my patrons have signed up using the iOS app. I know this because I had to warn them away from it, due to the 30% Apple Tax, and all of them complied. All of them. The iOS app is utterly meaningless to me and to my patrons. (Also you are blaming this on Apple's bullying, which is simply not credible. You've been nagging me to change to subscription billing for years, with the little red error icon appearing everywhere. This is your decision. You are transparently using Apple as an excuse.) --- I said this same thing to you a year and a half ago, the last time you tried to pull this nonsense. Second verse, same as the first. Last time, support replied that they "completely get why this change would be upsetting" and "will bring my feedback to the team." Uh huh. Patreon's absolutely awful level of service and support has been a huge problem for quite some time, but I am really not looking forward to having to figure out how to implement recurring monthly billing on my own. Patreon, YOU HAD ONE JOB. [0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2026/01/patreon-is-lying-again-and-blaming-apple-again/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2026/01/patreon-is-lying-again-and-...
• mrcwinn 9mo ago
  While its true that creators often share "extras" in return for support, it's crazy to call the support itself a "digital good." I can only assume they mean it is digitally good for their business.
• dankwizard 9mo ago
  Just do what we all do to dodge this, have the Account management and purchasing abilities sit inside an embedded browser window that opens up from a button push in the app. Yes it adds a little barrier but with Apple Pay it is a very small barrier and the juice is worth the squeeze.
  • iknowstuff 9mo ago
    Don’t they forbid this? Spotify couldn’t even link to their website in the US lol
    • colechristensen 9mo ago
      This was a result of the Apple vs Epic case, external payment processors avoiding the fee were enabled in the US in May 2025.
      • kccqzy 9mo ago
        If it was enabled, why can Apple still demand 30% cut here? Couldn’t Patreon just switch to external payment processors citing the Epic case?
        • AstroBen 9mo ago
          They'd have to require all current subscriptions be cancelled and the re-upped with the new payment processor, no? That's gunna be really costly But then again to avoid a 30% fee.. probably worth it
        • ezfe 9mo ago
          Because Patreon doesn't want to do that. They could.
        • ansc 9mo ago
          _in the US_
        • colechristensen 9mo ago
• m132 9mo ago
  Patiently waiting for a mandatory 30% fee on every transaction made with iOS banking software. Maybe that'll put a definitive stop to forcing mobile "apps" with jailbreak detection on customers and have banks think twice before crippling the functionality of their websites. Please Apple, make this happen.
  • DANmode 9mo ago
    Never. Popular apps have been exempt from these rules since the beginning of time - not that I agree with this.
    • wmf 9mo ago
      Is Patreon not popular?
      • speed_spread 9mo ago
        As an app? No.
      • DANmode 9mo ago
        If their app didn’t exist on iOS, would it be weird/embarrassing for Apple? That’s what “popular” means, in this context. That’s how they make their decisions.
        • Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
          I feel like it would definitely be weird. But Patreon does have a web version but I am not sure how many people prefer web sites in Apple ecosystem especially on Ios so I do find the whole thing to be a bit weird because this ~30% cut essentially seems to rip off of creators in some sense.
          • DANmode 9mo ago
            It rips off everyone. Epic Games went to federal court over this with Apple like 40 fuckin times - a related fun read for you.
• soundsgoodman 9mo ago
  how is this legal
  • johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    Trump fired Lina Khan on day one of his adminstration, so there's a start.
  • benoau 9mo ago
    Good question considering apps unequivocally have the right by court order to use their own billing, and considering the contempt ruling and referral for criminal investigation Apple already got for violating that order.
• dpc_01234 9mo ago
  Should be 50% at least.
• Noaidi 9mo ago
  Boycott Apple services. It’s the only way they will listen.
  • pixl97 9mo ago
    Yea, that won't do much. How about convict Apple of monopoly practices.
    • ks2048 9mo ago
      Tim Cook hanging out with Trump at the White House a few days ago - not a good sign this will happen anytime soon.
      • epolanski 9mo ago
        Jeff Bezos commissioning an hagiography on Melania looking for other favours.
    • Noaidi 9mo ago
      I really don’t understand this attitude. Of course it will. If enough people do it. This is how corporations change not through protest and we’re certainly not going to get any antimonopoly anything going on soon. They make literally about 40% of their profit off of Apple services. Do you really think if people on mass stopped buying Apple TV, Apple Pay, Apple Music, an iCloud, they wouldn’t care? https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/01/2025-marked-a-record-breaking-year-for-apple-services/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/01/2025-marked-a-record-... I mean the minute people started talking a general worker strike in Minneapolis all of a sudden all these companies freaked our and wrote a letter protesting about IVE’s behavior in Minneapolis.
      • pixl97 9mo ago
        >I really don’t understand this attitude. It's not an attitude, it's an observation. Corporations almost never change their behaviors because of protests and people bitching about them. It's one of the least effective ways of implementing change, especially when said company holds a locked in/monopoly position. The thing is the end consumer is mostly hidden from the problems of Apples over charging, it deeply affects the companies selling services on the Apple platforms. What would affect Apple far more is not consumers not buying, but a huge part of the people offering on Apples market pulling out. But, Apple has that game rigged to. Particular suppliers get special deals with far lower costs. The competitors to those suppliers are now screwed. Apple will not offer them lower costs (again, Apple hides these contracts until they eventually get disclosed in court), every other company ends up paying a huge Apple tax because pulling out hand the competitor a huge market. Honestly I'm fine with Apple charging whatever it wants for on its store. I am not fine with Apple selling you what should be a general purpose device and saying only its store can be used. Competitive stores on the device would quickly break Apple of it's monopoly behavior.
• justapassenger 9mo ago
  I miss the old school monopolies, where MS was a bad guy because they dared to include browser. And yes, I do legalese details of that are much more complex. But it just makes no common sense.
  • brianwawok 9mo ago
    Like try to break the internet and the java programming language? The former being most successful for years
    • protocolture 9mo ago
      You mean the web right? Or did Microsoft ever roll its own BGP code?
      • Imustaskforhelp 9mo ago
        For some reason I am assuming that they are talking about dot net web servers with the servers running windows (though I can be wrong and I am a little confused by what they mean break the internet as well in this context as well)
      • cephi 9mo ago
        There's also the time they tried to kill the open-ness of SMTP
    • anonymous908213 9mo ago
      If you mention Java, I think you may only incite more nostalgia for the monopolies of yesteryear. Was Microsoft's approach to Java evil and ill-intentioned, yes, absolutely. But it eventually resulted in .NET and C#, so I'd say that particular battle was a net benefit to humanity in the end. .NET is even truly cross-platform now, and open-source. Meanwhile Apple achieves interesting technical advances with their new hardware but I will never benefit from the existence of it because I will not use hardware that is locked to a prison OS.
    • m132 9mo ago
• _alaya 9mo ago
  Apple has an impressive commitment to evil, similar to Oracle. They get better at it every year.
  • blell 9mo ago
    The tremendously, villainy evil of getting money for a service.
    • thewebguyd 9mo ago
      A service that Apple is mandating everyone to use or else get kicked off their operating system... This would be an entirely different conversation if Patreon was still allowed to use other payment systems outside of Apple's IAP service. No, this is Apple forbidding competitors on their platform.
    • johnnyanmac 9mo ago
      So - the devs all need to get licesnses and specific hardware to develop for IOS - They spin up their own servers to manage all the finances coming in - They work on their payment processing solution separate from Apple. And Patreon still pays some fee to apple over the app. - the model of Patreon only takes 5% off of creators, so that's not enough for Apple. It also wants a cut at the customers of the website who provide services. Customers not beholden to any one platform.\ - And to force them to do that, they are kicking the other processing plan off as an option, leaving only them to work with. And it's somehow not evil? If I let a friend sleepover at my apartment, is the landlord in the right to demand a day of rent from them too?
      • fragmede 9mo ago
        I see you don't have much interaction with landlords and their thought processes.
• Waterluvian 9mo ago
  I think I’m old enough to have experienced this cycle so many times with so many businesses that I just feel kind of silly to hate on Apple or Microsoft or whoever. They’re all just maximizing profits as designed. I think people find it easier to scowl at the villain du jour than to dig into the deep complex issue of when capitalism doesn’t work, when the government isn’t doing enough, and what we could do about it… or the feeling that we really can’t do much.
  • aykutcan 9mo ago
    You don’t need to solve the problems of capitalism to call bullshit bullshit. Saying “companies maximize profits” doesn’t magically make the behavior acceptable and when Apple does this, it’s not just “the market at work,” it’s the use of market power.
    • Waterluvian 9mo ago
      Complaining about it is part of the system operating the way it operates. It’s factored in already. I just think that it’s not really interesting. It’s reasoning about the instance, not the class.
  • thewebguyd 9mo ago
    > feeling that we really can’t do much. That's why people don't dig into the deep complex issues. Because it's uncomfortable, and forces one to confront the potential reality that their worldview, and everything they've known about how our society works is wrong, broken, and collapsing in front of them. It can be a very distressing and depressing state of mind. There's a reason "ignorance is bliss" is a common trope, because there's some real truth to it. For some, it's better for emotional and mental wellbeing to ignore the problems of reality and remain ignorant.
    • deaux 9mo ago
      > For some, it's better for emotional and mental wellbeing to ignore the problems of reality and remain ignorant. I think it isn't just some, it's effectively everyone, the nature of being human. Instead, there's a group of people who are willing to sacrifice their emotional and wellbeing to face these problems of reality, and try to use the limited power they do have to improve them, for the greater good.
• hermanzegerman 9mo ago
  That's why the DSA is a good idea that should be replicated worldwide. Too many parasites between creators and consumers
• kibwen 9mo ago
  "Nice business model ya got there, sure would be a shame if somethin' happened to it."
• cmckn 9mo ago
  TLDR: if you still have any Patreon subscriptions through Apple’s in-app-purchase flow (look in Settings > Apple Account > Subscriptions) cancel them and restart them on patreon.com
• SilverElfin 9mo ago
  With only two mobile OS providers, they should be highly regulated. But given Tim Cook gave Trump a golden award and attended the premiere of the Melania documentary, I doubt they’ll get any antitrust trouble. Disappointing rent seeking behavior.
  • viktorcode 9mo ago
    On the contrary. There is an ongoing DoJ antitrust case against Apple with a long list of grievances. Most of those were already addressed by Apple (since the case was filed a pretty long time ago) the rest will be tested in the courtroom in the following years. Those cases take a long time.
  • jacquesm 9mo ago
    > rent seeking This goes way beyond rent seeking, it is much closer to outright theft, for rent you get something in return. This is just a nice form of robbery and I'm sure it is all legal by some stretched definition of the word but it makes me sick. Yesterday we had the monthly Woz adulation article, I really like the man but would like him even more if he told Cook to his face that this is not the Apple that he had in mind when he co-founded the company. It's not like he has anything to lose.
• insane_dreamer 9mo ago
  seems that 96% are already doing this: > According to TechCrunch, only 4% of Patreon creators are still using the platform's legacy billing system, with the rest having already switched over. I've never used the Patreon app even once -- those creators I support, I set it up on the website.
• okokwhatever 9mo ago
  Apple doing Apple things... nothing to see here
• didip 9mo ago
  Soon Google will do the same thing. And then what? The practical way out is to just buy QQQ and get some of your money back.
• AnonC 9mo ago
  I actually love Apple for pushing this matter this hard and sticking to its guns. This will bring in more regulatory scrutiny not just in the U.S. but in other countries as well. That will force Apple to give up (maybe in a decade or so) this practice of arbitrary rules and squeezing the last penny from others. Thanks a lot, Eddy Cue, for all that you do to bring Apple down to its knees!
  • cadamsdotcom 9mo ago
    So in about a trillion or two dollars of revenue’s time, then.
  • sethops1 9mo ago
    In the U.S. I wouldn't expect meaningful regulation from an administration that accepts bribes in the form of literal gold nuggets.
  • hrldcpr 9mo ago
    Tim Cook has been spending a lot of time sucking up to Donald Trump recently, so I think the U.S. federal government will only be assisting Apple
• shevy-java 9mo ago
  They work to make Apple rich. It's a bit like the mafia, but not as rememberable.
• seanhunter 9mo ago
  Why would anyone use Patreon’s app?
  • podgorniy 9mo ago
    Why would you think reality shows so many people using patreon app?
    • seanhunter 9mo ago
      I genuinely don’t know, which is why I asked. Even on mobile I only ever use the website and can see literally no benefit whatsoever to there being an app.
      • podgorniy 9mo ago
        TLDR: user reach and convenience (or avoidance of the inconvenience artificially created by the app store companies to ensure own monopoly). App stores are another source of distribution of the platform. Apps create another engagement channel. Apps are another way to reach more people and keep them "hooked" longer (push notifications, tighter integration with the system). Poor performance of the website-only apps is often offputting showing lower retention and engagement metrics. People don't konow how to create a web app icon on the home screen, but know how to search for apps in the appstore. Some platforms make website-based apps harder to create and manage (in the name of the resource optimisation or security). So no background players, no face-based logins, no airplay, battery drains way faster with web based apps, no proper file storage, hard to handle guestures, no restoration of the state of the pages, etc, etc. When inside patreon company there is a question "do we do the native app or we keep the website" there is no good argument from project manager side why not to do the app as it increases all the metrics they care about and accept future possible risk that something will change from Apple side.
        • seanhunter 9mo ago
          Thanks for taking the time to write this. I can totally see how my original message may have come across as snarky but it was honestly not intended as such. I sometimes feel like I don't understand my fellow humans at all and this is one of those times. I can see why patreon benefits from users using their app, but as an occasional user of patreon, as I say I am baffled that it's the sort of thing users will install an app for. It honestly never occurred to me to do so and as I say I use the website.
• mhitza 9mo ago
  Just stop publishing the app, not every little thing needs an app. What the use for the app anyway? Notifications and apple pay?
  • wuiheerfoj 9mo ago
    Don’t need an app for Apple Pay
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  • sunaookami 9mo ago
    Serving ads and tracking
  • atoav 9mo ago
    What is the use of an app that could be the website? Easy: Circumventing the protections a web browser offers your vict.. ah.. users.
  • iknowstuff 9mo ago
    Apps are more sticky. Users forget about websites more easily
    • grishka 9mo ago
      It's highly unlikely for someone to use the internet in 2020s but be unaware that Patreon is a thing.
    • oneeyedpigeon 9mo ago
      Patreon isn't something you need to be checking all the time, though, unless you patronise a LOT of people. It can pretty much be a "setup and forget" kinda deal.
      • cybrox 9mo ago
        A lot of people pay for the exclusive content which is curated on Patreon and their app.
• aquir 9mo ago
  You can be the patron of a creator and Apple in the same time! Jokes aside, this is awful...I like/use Apple products but this unacceptable, I hope everyone dodges this and pays through the website
  • sinnsro 9mo ago
    Another outstanding decision vetted by Tim Cook. In all seriousness, finance people see everything through the lens of margins and money primarily. Since any company's function is to deliver value to its shareholders, if allowed, bean counters will scorch the earth for it. Ultimately, this is at odds on how Jobs approached things, i.e., money was not the end all be all.
    • WA 9mo ago
      Apple's 30% tax was introduced under Steve Jobs and there were no small business exemptions back then. Jobs died in 2011. It's time to stop extrapolating what Jobs would be doing 15 years later in 2026 if he were still around. Could be the same, could be better, could be worse.
      • pjmlp 9mo ago
        In a time were operators where charging up to 90% for other stores. Those with listings of SMS codes for which app to download, depending on the phone OS. So it was a great deal back in 2008.
        • WA 9mo ago
          You are talking about phone apps, I'm talking about "software licenses sold over the internet".
        • bigyabai 9mo ago
          If Apple adopted the 90%, they would still be criticized. The fact remains that it was a very stupid system in 2008, and lowering the percentage doesn't obviate Apple's perverse incentives.
• supernes 9mo ago
  How long until they make the argument that they're entitled to 30% of your salary because you use Apple hardware to do your work?
  • lostlogin 9mo ago
    Hilarious how this is more than my tax rate. My tax rate gets education, healthcare, policing, etc etc.
    • high_na_euv 9mo ago
      On the other side Apple gets money, so they can make *whole* world better, not just your country. Think about how many lives were improved just by M* CPUs or Siri /s
      • lostlogin 9mo ago
        > Think about how many lives were improved just by M* CPUs or Siri But these were paid for by the hardware purchase.
    • steve1977 9mo ago
      Oh but you do get policing...
      • charcircuit 9mo ago
        Look at how many different APIs you get as a developer on iOS.
    • alibarber 9mo ago
      Feels more like a sales tax (VAT) though, which is the same for everyone.
      • oneeyedpigeon 9mo ago
        Exactly, not even a progressive tax!
• nusl 9mo ago
  Really shitty to see how greed and money corrupts everything. "Use our payment system" "No thanks, our current system works just fine" ".. or get kicked off our store" "Okay, I guess I'll do it then" "Okay you're on our payment system; we take 30% off all purchased using our payment system." "Get fucked"
• bluescrn 9mo ago
  Apps bad. Web good. Why did we let mobile go down the one-app-per-website path?
  • yoz-y 9mo ago
    When iPhone came out the sentiment was clearly opposite. The “sweet solution” was ridiculed and workarounds found. When web caught up, it was plagued with self inflicted performance issues. And eventually Apple decided to not invest in good PWA support. I was an app advocate for a long time, now I made a PWA and it’s maybe 90% there. But you still get behaviors that you can not fix. IMO the worst however is products that have a fully functional website, but refuse to let you use it (e.g.: Instagram)
    • didntcheck 9mo ago
      Yes. It's improved now, but the mobile web was bad for a long time. The early days of Android experienced a "web-first" ecosystem by force, as lazy businesses just threw a webview around their site, and it was awful
  • willtemperley 9mo ago
    Web is much better when the data should be public. Apps are much better when any kind of data privacy is required. The trouble is, market forces always try and push things the other way. The Reddit App for example is totally unnecessary. It's just public web content and should be a website. SaaS on the other hand shouldn't really be a thing at all. I have no idea why anyone thinks it's a good idea for their private data and app state to be on a cloud somewhere they don't control. Note that this does not preclude the use of cloud services that users can control e.g. by specifiying trusted endpoints. I'm trying to build the idea of "data locality first" software. I.e. you know where your data are and where they aren't.
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  • troupo 9mo ago
    > Why did we let mobile go down the one-app-per-website path? Because the web is still barely usable for anything more complex than showing a few lines of static text and an image? Because for almost as long as (modern) mobile apps exist the web was even less usable? Because even now you can whip up a fast complex mobile app with 60fps animations and native behaviours probably in minutes? While on the web you're lucky if you can figure out which state/animation/routing library du jour isn't broken beyond all hope?
• vjvjvjvjghv 9mo ago
  To keep their growth rates going, these mega companies soon need to swallow the whole country’s GDP. I really wonder where this is going. They can’t keep growing at some point.
  • akomtu 9mo ago
    This might become technocracy at some point, if the corporations become stronger than the state govs. In that case, the entire NOAM region will become a so-called technate, ruled by a form of ToS. I'd say, technocracy is way worse than even autocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement
    • darthoctopus 9mo ago
      I think you may have fundamentally misunderstood what a technocracy is: it has nothing to do with tech companies whatsoever. From literally the article that you have linked: > The technocracy movement proposed replacing partisan politicians and business people with scientists and engineers who had the technical expertise to manage the economy.
    • vjvjvjvjghv 9mo ago
      Technocracy is probably not the right word for what you mean. Oligarchy is probably a better one. This will probably evolve into idiocracy if you have seen the similarly named documentary .
• randyrand 9mo ago
  I assume this is only for purchases made using the app, right? Otherwise it just wouldn't make sense. Google gets a cut of all revenue, Apple gets a cut of all revenue, x, y, z, ... there would be nothing left over.
• Bengalilol 9mo ago
  > "According to TechCrunch, only 4% of Patreon creators are still using the platform's legacy billing system, with the rest having already switched over." The very last line of the article.
  • troupo 9mo ago
    Yes, because intimidation and scare tactics work
    • kickette 9mo ago
      This means that 4% are subverting the 30% fee.
      • benoau 9mo ago
        Like Apple subverted the court order to allow apps like Patreon to use their own billing.
• deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
• fnoef 9mo ago
  I don't get it. Apple is the top 3 most valuable companies in the WORLD. THE WORLD. They act like a greedy friend that would ask you to pay back $1.54 for a meal of $1500, because you ordered a side of fries which they did not eat. Aren't they making the majority of their money from selling hardware and iCloud subscriptions? Why they go on and milk developers, who make apps FOR THEIR ECOSYSTEM?!
  • amelius 9mo ago
    > greedy friend that would ask you to pay back $1.54 for a meal of $1500 30% is not that.
    • cybrox 9mo ago
      Analogy =\= Precise Maths
      • user34283 9mo ago
        There is a difference between paying 30% and 0.1% that goes beyond "precise maths". It's an egregious share, and Apple is making an estimated $30 billion a year with this, at a margin perhaps more than twice as high as on iPhone sales.
    • techterrier 9mo ago
      woosh
    • dns_snek 9mo ago
      $1500 represents the money you've already given them to purchase the hardware. You already overpay for that - fine - then they demand a 30% cut from $5 you're giving to a struggling independent creator. It's pure greed coming from one of the richest companies in the world.
  • sega_sai 9mo ago
    Maybe that's exactly how you become one of the most valuable companies.
• rock_artist 9mo ago
  The core problem is still the same. Until there will be a broad regulation that enforce any general purpose computing device to allow installing non-provisioned apps, we'll be in those situations.
• CrzyLngPwd 9mo ago
  If only we could find a way to blame Putin for this.
• amelius 9mo ago
  I still can't believe developers love to work for this feudal overlord. They are building a wall around our profession. Have a little foresight and move your business elsewhere.
  • user34283 9mo ago
    It's not so much that I love giving 30% to Apple, and more that there is no way to move your business elsewhere because Apple monopolizes mobile app distribution. And the other half of the mobile app market is monopolized by Google who copies the pricing model while delivering even worse (if any) service to developers. It's either getting out of mobile apps or paying up. This is not going to change without drastic steps by regulators, which both Apple and Google fight tooth and nail.
    • amelius 9mo ago
      It's not just about making apps. Anything you do for this company is going to backfire at some point and hurt us. This even includes developing open source tools for MacOS. And even if it doesn't backfire it is largely a wasted effort.
    • vlod 9mo ago
      You know some of us remember Mac System [7|8|9] and how MSFT pretty much ruled everything (Apple had low %). We kept working on the platform and developing tools and things changed. Of course Apple is a lot more powerful than MSFT back then and the general population is their target.
• panstromek 9mo ago
  > Note: This image has been edited to include a pile of cash. I giggled
• gethly 9mo ago
  web is now so good that mobile apps lost any meaning to exist - unless you need to access some local hw or data on consistent basis(the app must run as daemon or something like that). in other words, if you app is a service, just use web. if it is not a service, then you just sell it as you would a desktop program.
• phurpa10923 9mo ago
  Attitude like a true mob boss.
• nabla9 9mo ago
  Apple’s App Store profits on commissions from digital sales Revenue $32 B Operating Costs $7 B [1] Estimated Profit $25 B Operating Margin ~78% [1] R&D, security, hosting, human review, and including building and maintaining developer tools Xcode, APIs, and SDKs. Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits. Fun Fact: During the Epic trial, it was revealed that Apple's profit margins on the App Store were so high that even Apple's own executives were sometimes surprised by the internal financial reports. --- edit: There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.
  • wosined 9mo ago
    But people still use/buy it so why would they cut the cost?
    • deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    • vincnetas 9mo ago
      and that exactly what monopoly allows you to do.
    • nabla9 9mo ago
      There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.
      • NewsaHackO 9mo ago
        But what are they even doing for regulators to have to step in? Making profits from someone selling their product in your market seems pretty valid to me. Are you saying this is anticompetitive to other possible app store storefronts like Google Play or something?
• zombot 9mo ago
  Apple obviously needs this to save themselves from bankruptcy.
• fc417fc802 9mo ago
  Isn't Patreon effectively a sort of payment processor? So how is this different from Apple demanding a 30% cut of transactions conducted by (for example) Paypal? (Assuming Paypal has an iOS app ofc, I have no idea.)
  • PunchyHamster 9mo ago
    Well, it's called greed
  • viktorcode 9mo ago
    They also host and serve videos. Not sure about other media
    • fc417fc802 9mo ago
      Good point. That makes them a combined platform and payment processor. So it seems to me the logical question would be, shouldn't they just break the platform part out then? But isn't that exactly what their percentage fee amounts to? So Apple should be entitled to 30% of their (IIRC) 5%, right? Really they ought to further split that out into "processing fee" and "platform services fee" and Apple would then be entitled to 30% of the latter.
• Fokamul 9mo ago
  So weird, why do you need Patreon dedicated app in appstore? There is really so many people visiting Patreon, only because it's in Crapple appstore? Or is this because they want to support as many payment methods as possible. And Apple Pay support requirements is to have an app? Would be great, if they simple take a hit and gutted the app and redirect all people into website. If they have good PR team, with proper messaging, they could make even more money, since people on Patreon usually don't like corpos.
• PunchyHamster 9mo ago
  Incoming "please pay on webpage, else you have to pay 30% more" banner in the app
  • g947o 9mo ago
    Version update rejected by Apple
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  • andrewl-hn 9mo ago
    This is actually against their App Store rules, and likewise the article has the following bit: > Patreon gives creators the option to either increase their prices in the iOS app only, [...] it would totally not fly with Apple. They don't let this 30% commission to be visible by users, just like every other company that does such commissions. You don't see that the creator only gets about half of your donation on YouTube or Twitch, you never see that Visa takes 1% of your payment in a store, etc. Even governments do that. I don't see the value of VAT in the price of goods in stores. The US sales tax is an exception. A lot of people would complain about how high those fees (or taxes) are if they saw them spelled out for them.
• JamesTRexx 9mo ago
  Well, I certainly won't sell my fiction to Apple for them to turn it into a series in the future. Unless they pay me 30% of all hardware and software revenue because popularity is a vehicle to sell more under the Apple brand.
• cong-or 9mo ago
  2035: Apple takes 30% of my Patreon, Google matched it through their "Competitive Parity Agreement," and the EU fined them both €2 billion which they paid in 45 minutes of revenue then raised fees to 32% to cover legal costs. The real innovation was convincing us this was inevitable.
  • Rygian 9mo ago
    You naively assumed that they would actualy disbourse 2 G€ in payments for those fines. Reality disagrees: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2024/12/13/data-regulator-collects-fraction-of-fines-levied/ https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2024/12/13/data-regulato...
• nromiun 9mo ago
  Apple's ecosystem is the 8th wonder of this world. Nowhere else you can put a logo on a piece of cloth or aluminum wheel and sell them for hundreds of dollars. Greatest capitalist company of all time.
• SwtCyber 9mo ago
  What bugs me about this isn't even the 30% in isolation, it's the category creep
• elAhmo 9mo ago
  Can't they just remove this option from app and redirect to the web? Wasn't this the same story with Spotify?
  • mattmaroon 9mo ago
    Yes, which suggests internal metrics show this to still be the better path.
• ElDji 9mo ago
  For those who, like me, are looking to break free from Apple but were tied to it through photo storage in iCloud, here's a first step towards independence: Immich! I self-host an instance for my whole family, and it works like a charm.
  • PlatoIsADisease 9mo ago
    I've been saying its a 'walled prison'.
• m000 9mo ago
  Technofeudalism at its finest.
• jacquesm 9mo ago
  The wealthiest company in the world really needs that last little bit from those Patreon creators who have it way too easy in their lives. It's not as if the people that take that meager bit of cash are going to invest it in Apple stock so they're going to have to pay up. The Mafia can learn a thing or two from Cook.
  • dzonga 9mo ago
    no wonder Tim Cook hangs around Trump a lot. Both employ mafia tactics
  • haritha-j 9mo ago
    I guess that's how you become the wealthiest company in the world.
  • siavosh 9mo ago
    This is the machine. The behavior is much larger than any CEO or even trillion dollar company.
    • jacquesm 9mo ago
      The CEO could easily stop this.
      • siavosh 9mo ago
        And the board would replace them. It’s their fiduciary duty.
        • dopamean 9mo ago
          The board could argue that it's damaging to the company's brand and long term bottom dollar to charge such usurious fees and fire the CEO for taking such a harsh stance with app developers.
          • siavosh 9mo ago
• worksonmine 9mo ago
  Does this apply to creators that aren't even in the Apple ecosystem or is it only for the patreons paying through the iOS app? What if everyone moved to the website?
• woadwarrior01 9mo ago
  Apple has an Apple Pay for Donations[1] program, which doesn't apply for rent seeking entities like Patreon. I wonder if Patreon's 10% fee is commensurate with the negligible value that they provide? [1]: https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/nonprofits/ https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/nonprofits/
  • billynomates 9mo ago
    Yes but you cannot restrict content or features based on whether or not someone is a donor, which is basically what Patreon is for. Source I run a non-profit and we have an app that takes donations via Apple Pay
  • dbbk 9mo ago
    Did you even bother to look up what Patreon is providing for that fee?
• jakub_g 9mo ago
  Just to put things into perspective: Visa and MasterCard interchange fee in EU is 0.2% for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards. Apple taking 100x this is just ridiculous.
• Beestie 9mo ago
  Apple is doing to creators what the recording industry did to musicians. Enjoy what's left of the Golden Age of Patreon content because greed is going to suffocate it out of existence.
  • aembleton 9mo ago
    Or setup payments through the website
    • davidmurdoch 9mo ago
      Is it still true that Apple bans you from telling users, in app, they can pay through alternative platforms?
      • spogbiper 9mo ago
        I think it depends on the laws controlling Apple where you live
• conartist6 9mo ago
  Take from the poorest to give to the richest of the rich -- that is the new way of doing business. I feel like I've just watched a man in a $4000 suit wresting the change jar out of the hands of a homeless person
  • jacquesm 9mo ago
    Took his mobile phone and shoes too!
• baby 9mo ago
  every system that gets too greedy eventually gets squashed (e.g. regulations) or kills its host (e.g. cancer). I've noticed watching blood money on Netflix that greedy systems tend to get greedier and greedier, and this is the best way to catch bad actors. On the other hand, criminals that try not to become too big and remain low-profile are the ones that never get caught.
• ingohelpinger 9mo ago
  Nostr and Zaps, problem solved.
  • vlod 9mo ago
    Can you mind elaborating further how this would work? I am somewhat familiar with both of them. Are you suggesting some sort of app store or web page to send money/bitcoin?
    • ingohelpinger 9mo ago
      Nostr is a decentralized social protocol where people can send btc tips, called zaps, directly to creators.
      • vlod 9mo ago
        I believe what you're saying is the benefit of Bitcoin (or other crypto) to get around gatekeepers. I don't believe Patreon at this time supports any crypto. If they wanted they could open this up. Not sure if Apple would allow this (on an store app) without their 'slice' of the pie.
• idiotsecant 9mo ago
  The amount of people defending this because it's apple in here is astounding. This is possibly the least consumer friendly thing apple has done in a while, and that's saying something.
• rahilb 9mo ago
  Question for the indie developers here; do you get more paying users from Apple devices? I’ve never even considered publishing apps for other platforms as my gut tells me juice wouldn’t be worth the squeeze. Or to put it another way, I would prefer customers who already proved they have deep(er) pockets and are price insensitive.
  • ivm 9mo ago
    Yes, I have the same app on iOS and Android, and for a long time it brought in half the revenue on Android for twice the effort (really messy SDK combined with too many OS versions and devices). Lately the gap has been closing, but it's still roughly 40% Android and 60% iOS, though I have slightly more installs on iOS.
    • rahilb 9mo ago
      Interesting insight, thanks.
• ghm2199 9mo ago
  Wait a minute, there is a payment surface you can build in iOS(e.g. iirc a stripe demo video from the epic ruling last year), where one can pay outside the apple in-app payment method. The surface could specifically get you to your own web view(i.e. your own domain or stripe's surface) for payments. The bigger idea, I thought, would not let apple figure out a company's take was, to ask them to pay up. How does this shakedown work for companies/orgs that have large number of paying iOS DAUs? What am I not getting here?
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
• samrus 9mo ago
  This is low even for apple. They havent earned commision on this at all
  • jacquesm 9mo ago
    They don't mind.
  • layer8 9mo ago
    As they don’t for all the other digital-content purchases they have taken 30% for many years already. Which is why we have been getting great UX like being unable to buy books in the Kindle app.
    • samrus 9mo ago
      Yeah. I get charging for hosting an app in your store, that requires work to build the ecosystem and security and stuff. But you have to draw the line on a platform and ecosystem and vetting that someone else has done. What did apple do to build kindles library of books? What did apple do to attract creators that patreon's users would like to support? Nothing. They should get 30% for installing paid apps that they are vetting and hosting, but nothing for things third parties are hosting and vetting
• justinclift 9mo ago
  Interestingly, Patreon doesn't give creators an option of "Just don't accept donations for us from Apple users" instead, which is what my old project (SQLite Browser / DB Browser for SQLite) would have gone with if available. :( I've instead handed the reins to others, so I don't have skin in this game any more. ;)
  • kg 9mo ago
    Apple generally frowns upon things like that. At one point they wouldn't even let you disclose in your UI that Apple was taking a 30% cut of transactions, it was against the rules to do so.
• phkahler 9mo ago
  For the price of paying Apple, Patreon should be able to develop a web app instead. Why isn't this happening? Why an app when the web will do?
  • intrasight 9mo ago
    Yeah, I don't understand this at all. I use Patreon and I support a couple of tech content creators. But my use of Patreon intersect in no way with iOS and I'm not sure how it would. Can someone please explain?
    • fruitworks 9mo ago
      Okay so basicially apple users are dumb as rocks which is why iOS is so profitable in the first place, and they are corraled into installing apps and making in-app purchases.
      • intrasight 9mo ago
        Users are gonna do what's best for them, and if they install apps then it's also what's best for Apple shareholders ;)
• 1970-01-01 9mo ago
  The dark side of your walled garden is they can abuse you as they see fit, and when they become a giant, your options are to like it or leave.
• davidmurdoch 9mo ago
  Sometimes I think the 30% was supposed to be 3% originally, and no one noticed the decimal was in the wrong place when they shipped it, and then people paid it anyway, so they kept it. 30% is just so unreasonable that it would be totally understandable if someone would believe this.
  • deadbabe 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    • bjord 9mo ago
      this is sarcasm, right?
      • deadbabe 9mo ago
        Yes
        • bjord 9mo ago
          seems like no one else got that. tough crowd.
    • CivBase 9mo ago
      Please explain.
    • HumblyTossed 9mo ago
      How does one even come about creating a thought like this?
  • derekdahmer 9mo ago
    Steam, the Kindle Store and iTunes all had similar sales cuts since before the app store launched in 2008. It’s egregious now but at the time it wasn’t crazy because software developers often made way less than that when going through traditional publishing routes. Plus everyone was just happy to be making money off the new platform.
• dev_l1x_be 9mo ago
  What is the strategy for “app” distribution for the mobile market that bypasses iOS / other vendors ? Is this even possible?
• megamix 9mo ago
  Can someone explain how much of value the iOS app is to users? I'm a noob at Patreon, aren't creators receiving their support through the website's payment gateway already? I'm not really against a company setting the rules if it's their platform, if the market cannot accept it then alternatives (competitors) will eventually find new ways.
  • d--b 9mo ago
    Probably the only added value is direct notifications of new content. Patreon is probably going to shut down the payment feature from the app and orient people to the website. That's what I'd do... And bad mouth Apple. Given Patreon's clients is influencers, this is a fairly bad PR move by Apple, for probably zero return...
• gumby271 9mo ago
  So the company that also lets you support your favorite podcasts via a subscription decided their competitor should pay 30% more just to do the same thing? Cool.
• wigster 9mo ago
  are they going to pay 30% towards refunds/fines etc. due to crimes committed using iOS?
• indycliff 9mo ago
  This is why holding Apple stock is almost a can't lose.
• kevin_thibedeau 9mo ago
  Imagine if Visa or Mastercard decided they were going to take a 30% cut as a merchant fee. Governments wouldn't allow it. Why does Apple get a complete pass?
• CivBase 9mo ago
  If I were a creator, I'd start looking into platforms other than Patreon. What does Patreon offer that makes them worth giving up 30% of my revenue?
• HumblyTossed 9mo ago
  Sounds ... like the mafia. You MUST use our billing system. Oh, btw, because you are using our billing system, we get 30%.
• throwaway290 9mo ago
  Who pays for Patreon via iOS? if many people subscribe via ios then obviously apple is bringing creators more paying subscribers no so seems kinda fair to charge for access to that ecosystem?
• root_axis 9mo ago
  How does this work if I signed up to patreon on the web and have never used the app?
• tracker1 9mo ago
  And this is a big part of why I don't own an iOS device, and likely won't be purchasing another laptop from them, despite liking the hardware generally. Not that I like Google much more re: Android and locking down side-loading more than before.
  • ryukoposting 9mo ago
    I was considering GrapheneOS when I bought my latest phone 2 years ago, but decided to stay with Android in the end. It has become very clear to me that I made the wrong choice.
• post_break 9mo ago
  If I buy a gift card through my banking app, using reward points, is Apple entitled to 30% of that?
  • fruitworks 9mo ago
    Yes. You owe Apple and Patreon as much ad they want to charge, because you are a mental slave
• cedws 9mo ago
  There's a kind of dissonance here that Patreon should be allowed to take a cut, being a platform on which creators can earn money - but Apple should not be allowed to take a cut, being a platform on which companies can operate their business.
  • kg 9mo ago
    There's "a cut" and then there's 30%. Pretending Patreon's cut is morally or even objectively equivalent to Apple's is a little bit of a stretch.
    • cedws 9mo ago
      I agree that 30% is high but the arguments I see online are generally in favor of a cut to 0%, not a reduction. If you get into the weeds of what the cut should be then it gets messy, who gets to decide? How do you determine what is actually fair for all parties? I would argue Patreon is far more parasitic than Apple in this case, they're shaving off 10% for a pretty simple service.
      • kg 9mo ago
        Payment processors are generally really wary of services like Patreon. Cohost tried to set one up and was unable to find someone willing to stick by a commitment to process payments for an equivalent service. I think it's reasonable to say Patreon shouldn't take 10%, but you can't ring up Visa and get a regular 2-3% rate from them for something like Patreon, most likely, due to things like brand risk, chargeback rates, etc. Then there's all the administrative overhead involved in disbursing payments to creators from all sorts of different legal jurisdictions and reporting information to the right government agencies. I can easily imagine the operating costs of Patreon being something like 7-8% of the money they handle. I haven't seen anyone in this particular thread calling for Apple's cut to be 0%. I do think they could afford that, but a common refrain is that Epic's rate of 12% would be sustainable, and I agree with that. It's also the case that Apple moved to a gradual rate system where low-income developers only pay 15%, which kind of proves that they don't actually need 30%, they just want 30%.
• artursapek 9mo ago
  Greed
• Insanity 9mo ago
  Man that should not be allowed. 30% (pre-tax) loss, plus taxes, plus platform cost. Thats insane
• ryukoposting 9mo ago
  If I'm patreon, here's what I'm doing: Jack up every Apple user's monthly payment by 30%. When they go into the app to figure out what the hell happened, they will find big red text saying "want to avoid the Apple tax? re-subscribe through our website! (Link)" They click the link, it opens a webpage where all the payment info has been auto-filled. They click "ok." Bam, fee gone.
  • wbobeirne 9mo ago
    Much of what you suggested would not pass apple review, and would get your app removed from the app store if you tried to hide it during review.
• yearolinuxdsktp 9mo ago
  Happy to pay 42% higher Patreon fees in exchange for ease of subscription control, visibility, safety and ease of payment with in-app Apple payments. It’s funny seeing people call 78% operating margin too high, while we all know that software VCs demand 90% margin from their startups, and if it wasn’t Apple, people here would call that an excellent business.
• bfors 9mo ago
  So how do I avoid apple taking the cut? Unsubscribe from people in my ios app and resubscribe on the web? I subscribe to super small creators where this 30% cut makes a meaningful difference.
• cush 9mo ago
  This was a great reminder to me that I needed to cancel every subscription I have tied to my Apple account. I'll give it to them though, they do make it very easy - I just cancelled all 10 of them in 10 seconds.
• yeezyszn 9mo ago
  I’m surprised at the comments here. Why should the government set the “right” margin? If you cap the margin, you’re entrenching the monopoly forever. Allow them to charge what they want, and set tax rates on corporations commensurate with the size of their profits. Make it easier for competitors to start. The path to a sustainable marketplace does not come from top down enforcement of margins. It comes from competition
  • boh144 9mo ago
    And competition comes from creating a competitive market. Rent seeking behaviour is not new. This is monopolistic behaviour that should be regulated. I agree that capping fees is not solving the crux of the problem though.
  • josephcsible 9mo ago
    > Why should the government set the “right” margin? For monopolies, that is the least bad option. What would be way better, though, is mandating an end to that monopoly by allowing all users to install any apps they want on their iPhones without needing Apple's permission in any way, shape, or form.
    • yeezyszn 9mo ago
      You’re permanently entrenching them as the winner, and reducing the incentive for a competitor to emerge. The cost of developing these platforms is high and clearly it’s hard enough to compete, why would you kneecap future competitors from the get go?
• dfedbeef 9mo ago
  Insane PR move to further whittle down direct payments to people's favorite content creators
• blahyawnblah 9mo ago
  Can't they just link out to their site to do billing?
• mark_l_watson 9mo ago
  I think this is relevant, Cory Doctorow's recent speech to Canadian government and texh leaders: https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/29/post-american-canada/#ottawa https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/29/post-american-canada/#ott... He talks about Apple's app store
• nuclearsugar 9mo ago
  For anyone seeking more info, check out these articles - https://www.patreon.com/posts/apple-has-its-on-148395613 https://www.patreon.com/posts/apple-has-its-on-148395613 https://www.patreon.com/posts/128473586 https://www.patreon.com/posts/128473586
• okokwhatever 9mo ago
  Tech companies are pushing their clients step by step out of new devices, platforms, subscription services, SaaS, ... Governments are pushing citizens step by step into Tech to control and tax their lives. At the end we, as simple humans, are always in the middle.
• franczesko 9mo ago
  With this logic, one should pay Google for making purchases in their browser or Netflix should pay e.g. Samsung a fee, as users consume content on their devices. Truly ridiculous.
• fennecbutt 9mo ago
  Ahaha. Ha ha ha ha ha. I mean, keep buying their phones or whatever.
• linuxhansl 9mo ago
  The regulator must step in now and allow installing applications outside of the AppStore! We are witnessing in real-time what a monopoly and a walled garden leads to. I'm not betting the US to do this right now. But look at the EU... Alternative app stores are allowed (forced by EU regulations), and it already lead to lower fees. The vast majority of people will continue find and install (and pay for) stuff via the AppStore. Let this be a cautionary tale for Google's plans with Android (developer verification, etc).
• siavosh 9mo ago
  I’ve heard it said that monopolies aren’t a flaw of the system—they’re its product. What else could perpetual, cutthroat competition lead to? This isn’t an unintended consequence. In every new era, even when an industry is disrupted or reinvented, a small number of dominant companies work aggressively to prevent real upheaval—by acquiring smaller competitors, engaging in regulatory capture, and shaping the rules in their favor. Historically, governments have often served the interests of their corporate patrons. The system itself is built for maximal extraction, and there is no “invisible hand” waiting in the wings to protect consumers. There are no evil and good CEOs, just cogs in this machine doing what they're incentivized to do, accumulate.
  • WheatMillington 9mo ago
    There is no monopoly here though. Android makes up a pretty substantial proportion of users. That users continue to use Apple devices despite this kind of greed (and that people on HN cheered when Apple defeated Epic in court) shows that users don't care, which is unfortunate.
    • stfp 9mo ago
      Fair, but duopoly then, not much better
    • bigyabai 9mo ago
      Cartel arrangements can still be a monopoly.
      • WheatMillington 9mo ago
        ... but Google doesn't levy these charges.
        • bigyabai 9mo ago
          ... Google doesn't sell iOS apps.
• trinsic2 9mo ago
  Didn't apple lose the case brought against them by Epic for this very reason? Are they still operating illegally against the order of the court?[0] [0]: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-05-02/ruling-apple-app-store-epic-games https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...
• bubbi 9mo ago
  [dead]
• zac23or 9mo ago
  The Beggar Barons strike again! https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/
• NewUser76312 9mo ago
  I don't understand, doesn't the market solve these issues? Here's what I figure would happen: 1. App creators will pass the extra cost over to the iPhone users. 2. Android (and other platforms that can host smartphone apps) will be more competitive and start to look better for both app creators and consumers. Sure, there's a bit of a context switching cost. Not everyone will just be able to automatically change over to an Android phone tomorrow. But it doesn't need to happen all at once. These phones get updated and replaced every 1-2 years. If iOS users see their app store prices rising too high, and they aren't OK with this, then they will switch to Android eventually, once it's worth it. Otherwise, I don't see any problem with Apple reaping the benefit of their powerful and well-built walled garden ecosystem.
  • pavel_lishin 9mo ago
    > If iOS users see their app store prices rising too high, and they aren't OK with this, then they will switch to Android eventually, once it's worth it. Or they'll stop buying as many apps, or stop supporting people on Patreon.
  • rdedev 9mo ago
    There is a lot of stickiness associated with apple products. Be it their walled gardens or having better hardware or brand recognition. This is especially true in the American market
  • GuinansEyebrows 9mo ago
    Look, I’m not switching to an Android just because I want to subscribe to a few podcasts.
• aweiher 9mo ago
  Ok, cool - Apple is doing Apple things. And Patreon: will they comply?
• mrkpdl 9mo ago
  Not cool Apple, bad look, I like you less for this.
• dudeinhawaii 9mo ago
  If a fan starts a $10/mo Patreon membership inside the iOS app, Apple's subscription terms imply $3/mo goes to Apple for the first year (then $1.50/mo after), and Patreon's platform fee still applies on top. Patreon says Apple is also forcing the remaining ~4% of creators using legacy billing to migrate to subscription billing by Nov 1, 2026 or risk the app being pulled. That's a meaningful hit to creator economics for something that's closer to "patronage" than a typical in-app digital good. I don't pay attention to all of Apples behaviors (still running an iphone 11) but this feels quite rent-seeky and creator hostile.
• sinkingstone 9mo ago
  Why can't Patreon hike up prices in their iPhone app? It would not only shift the cost to the user, it makes them cover the 30%, while discouraging the use of the iPhone app itself. They could add a banner before the payment is processed that says "you could be paying less for the same benefit to the patron if you pay from our website. The price is higher here because of Apple, and you're covering the fee."
  • hu3 9mo ago
    Apple doesn't allow communicating that to the user and neither price differentiation to compensate their fees.
• jrklabs_com 9mo ago
  Am I the only one that dislikes phone apps?! For example, I do NOT want to install an app for my power company. Just text/email me if you need to reach me and I can do anything else through their website. I do support apps that support unique phone features: Phone, camera, GPS, etc.
• lunias 9mo ago
  It cannot be said enough: Do not use apps! We already have the web! Tell everyone you know.