4 ms·

You could make the argument that Patreon isn't much more than a banking app. It just focuses on the receiver of the money than the sender. I think Apple is sl

You could make the argument that Patreon isn't much more than a banking app. It just focuses on the receiver of the money than the sender. I think Apple is slowly killing apps with this policy. Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else. This will likely be much stronger in countries where iPhones do not have the same market share as in the US.

wlesieutre 9mo ago
Honestly I wouldn't be that shocked if Apple tried demanding a 30% royalty on bank deposits and bills paid using iPhone apps. They've decided the future of their company depends on being huge assholes about it.
- mcintyre1994 9mo ago
  I would be surprised by that because iPhone users would notice that. I think the App Store model relies on their fee being invisible to consumers, and the increased price you’re paying not being linked to them. AFAIK apps aren’t allowed to explain that they charge more if you subscribe on iPhone to users either, or why they do so.
  - dr-detroit 9mo ago
    [dead]
  - wlesieutre 9mo ago
    True, hard for bank deposits where the user sees both ends of the transaction. For bill payments though, they'd just insist on taking 30% of your electric bill payment and if the electric company's margins aren't high enough to absorb that then "Haha that sounds like a you problem" - Tim Cook, probably
  - odo1242 9mo ago
    Apps are allowed to link to web services to offer payment as an alternative to IAPs and offer a discount for doing so, thanks to Apple v Epic.
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      Can they, or will they be delisted if they do that?
      - bjt 9mo ago
        From the Patreon FAQ: > Can I opt out of the App Store Fee? > For U.S. fans, there’s still a way to avoid Apple’s fee. When signing up in the iOS app, they can choose web checkout instead of Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple’s rules require that any paid content shown in the iOS app is also available to purchase through Apple’s in-app system. https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/28801582599181-iOS-In-app-Purchases-and-Migrating-to-Subscription-Billing-FAQ https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/28801582599181...
    - dlubarov 9mo ago
      While you're correct, it's worth noting that this only happened because the judge in the Epic lawsuit ordered an injunction forcing Apple to allow it. Apple then "maliciously complied", allowing it while demanding a 27% fee on any web-based payments, which was found to be a violation of the injunction. https://technologylaw.fkks.com/post/102ka4o/apple-violated-u-s-court-order-ending-apples-27-commission-on-external-purcha https://technologylaw.fkks.com/post/102ka4o/apple-violated-u...
- jorvi 9mo ago
  Something interesting is that Apple and Google Pay charge a tiny commission (don't have the number at hand). Which banks didn't like, so at least on Android they created their own NFC payment stacks for a while. Only to then discover that maintaining such a stack cost them more per year than the commission.
  - fauigerzigerk 9mo ago
    I think Google Pay does not charge a fee.
  - vel0city 9mo ago
    Ah yes, back in the Isis days. What terrible luck in the naming department on that one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcard
  - hermanzegerman 9mo ago
    My German Bank still maintains their own pay stack. It's also nice that I don't have to share my payment information or commission with another parasite
- burgreblast 9mo ago
  When you use Apple Pay, Apple collects ~0.15% (15 bps) from the issuing banks for credit. $1B in transaction volume = $1.5M In 2022 the total volume was estimated at $6T * .15% = $9B. Real number would be maybe half due to lower fees on debit, but it's hugely profitable for Apple, and carries zero risk.
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    They'd much rather have 30%.
  - mox1 9mo ago
    I think this is a very strong and simple argument to use with regulators, politicians etc. When I put my credit card into Apples ecosystem they take a 0.15% cut of the transaction and appear to be very happy with the results. When I put my application into the ecosystem they take 30%.. You can then break down why this is, but boy is that an interesting contrast.
Spoom 9mo ago
> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else. Frankly, yes, please. I mean, I'm biased as my whole career is in web app development, but there are so many things these days that do not need a whole native app. They're just communicating with a server backend somewhere, using none of the unique native functionality of the phone (much of which is available in browser APIs these days anyway). I can block ads in a web app much more easily. It's much harder to do customer-hostile things like block screenshots in a web app. Native apps definitely have a place, but I think they're very overused, mostly for reasons that benefit the business at the expense of the customer.
- BiteCode_dev 9mo ago
  Apple makes sure it's not practical. You still can't have a "share to" target that is a web app on iOS. And the data your can store in local storage on safari is a joke. Of course, forget about background tasks and integrated notifications. In fact, even on Android you miss features with web apps, like widgets for quick actions, mapping actions to buttons and so on. And no matter how good you cache things, the mobile browser will unload the app, and you will always get this friction when you load the web app on the new render you don't have on regular apps.
  - mircerlancerous 9mo ago
    Service workers solve the cache issue; web apps can run permanently offline after initial load. You may be a bit out of date on the state of the web.
    - BiteCode_dev 9mo ago
      No, I use them but loading and unloading the app in the tab still happens when the browser flushes the app from memory because the OS killed it or the browser eviction policy hits. This loading is not nearly as seamless as a regular app starting back up. For a regular app, you have the app loading, and the os cache helping with it. If you do your job half correctly, it loads as a block almost instantly. For a web app you have the web browser loading, the the display of the white viewport in a flash, then the app loading in the browser (with zero os cache to help with so it's slower). It needs then to render. Then restoring the scroll (which is a mess with a browser) and the state as much as you can but you are limited with persistence size so most content must be reloaded which means the layout is moving around. Not to mention JS in a browser is not nearly as performant as a regular app, so as your app grows, it gets worse.
Almondsetat 9mo ago
You couldn't make that argument because Patreon is also a platform to host content, not just send money. If it was something like a twitch donation app the argument would make more sense
- dboreham 9mo ago
  The hosting aspect is only necessary because a) piracy and b) Google would eat their lunch if they were the gate keeper to content. Bit like how Ticketmaster takes all the money from artists because they get to say who sits in a seat.
- Already__Taken 9mo ago
  You could if they built a donation & support trading app separate from the content app?
josephcsible 9mo ago
> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else. This is why Apple makes PWAs so miserable in Safari and disallows other browsers unless they're just Safari with lipstick.
barnas2 9mo ago
> You could make the argument that Patreon isn't much more than a banking app. Don't give them any ideas.
rkagerer 9mo ago
Next up, Apple starts taking a cut of every money transfer you do with your banking app.
- H1Supreme 9mo ago
  Isn't that exactly what this is? Except they're targeting a single app.
- hermanzegerman 9mo ago
  They do with Apple Pay, and don't allow Banks to roll with their own system like on Android
direwolf20 9mo ago
Apple users seem to be fine with everything being much more expensive. Not only the 30% apple tax itself, developers know Apple users pay more and specify higher prices on Apple.
- jama211 9mo ago
  30% is also the cut google takes on the google play store. This is not an apple only issue. This is a regulatory one.
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    Google allows out–of–store installation (for now...) so it's much easier to argue there's competition. Apps installed through F–Droid don't have this tax.
    - jama211 9mo ago
      And in the EU alternative app stores are allowed on iphone as well. In both cases, it’s a near negligible amount of people that use them. Your exceptions prove the rule, if anything.
      - thejazzman 9mo ago
        This would not be true if all markets rose simultaneously. It’s why they all fight so hard to delay the inevitable. You don’t have to win, you just have to win for long enough to be established
crabmusket 9mo ago
Imagine seeing a popup banner in an app each time you open it that interrupts whatever you're trying to do to say "open on our website!" (Apple's censorship notwithstanding)

wlesieutre 9mo ago

Honestly I wouldn't be that shocked if Apple tried demanding a 30% royalty on bank deposits and bills paid using iPhone apps. They've decided the future of their company depends on being huge assholes about it.

mcintyre1994 9mo ago
I would be surprised by that because iPhone users would notice that. I think the App Store model relies on their fee being invisible to consumers, and the increased price you’re paying not being linked to them. AFAIK apps aren’t allowed to explain that they charge more if you subscribe on iPhone to users either, or why they do so.
- dr-detroit 9mo ago
  [dead]
- wlesieutre 9mo ago
  True, hard for bank deposits where the user sees both ends of the transaction. For bill payments though, they'd just insist on taking 30% of your electric bill payment and if the electric company's margins aren't high enough to absorb that then "Haha that sounds like a you problem" - Tim Cook, probably
- odo1242 9mo ago
  Apps are allowed to link to web services to offer payment as an alternative to IAPs and offer a discount for doing so, thanks to Apple v Epic.
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    Can they, or will they be delisted if they do that?
    - bjt 9mo ago
      From the Patreon FAQ: > Can I opt out of the App Store Fee? > For U.S. fans, there’s still a way to avoid Apple’s fee. When signing up in the iOS app, they can choose web checkout instead of Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple’s rules require that any paid content shown in the iOS app is also available to purchase through Apple’s in-app system. https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/28801582599181-iOS-In-app-Purchases-and-Migrating-to-Subscription-Billing-FAQ https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/28801582599181...
  - dlubarov 9mo ago
    While you're correct, it's worth noting that this only happened because the judge in the Epic lawsuit ordered an injunction forcing Apple to allow it. Apple then "maliciously complied", allowing it while demanding a 27% fee on any web-based payments, which was found to be a violation of the injunction. https://technologylaw.fkks.com/post/102ka4o/apple-violated-u-s-court-order-ending-apples-27-commission-on-external-purcha https://technologylaw.fkks.com/post/102ka4o/apple-violated-u...
jorvi 9mo ago
Something interesting is that Apple and Google Pay charge a tiny commission (don't have the number at hand). Which banks didn't like, so at least on Android they created their own NFC payment stacks for a while. Only to then discover that maintaining such a stack cost them more per year than the commission.
- fauigerzigerk 9mo ago
  I think Google Pay does not charge a fee.
- vel0city 9mo ago
  Ah yes, back in the Isis days. What terrible luck in the naming department on that one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcard
- hermanzegerman 9mo ago
  My German Bank still maintains their own pay stack. It's also nice that I don't have to share my payment information or commission with another parasite
burgreblast 9mo ago
When you use Apple Pay, Apple collects ~0.15% (15 bps) from the issuing banks for credit. $1B in transaction volume = $1.5M In 2022 the total volume was estimated at $6T * .15% = $9B. Real number would be maybe half due to lower fees on debit, but it's hugely profitable for Apple, and carries zero risk.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  They'd much rather have 30%.
- mox1 9mo ago
  I think this is a very strong and simple argument to use with regulators, politicians etc. When I put my credit card into Apples ecosystem they take a 0.15% cut of the transaction and appear to be very happy with the results. When I put my application into the ecosystem they take 30%.. You can then break down why this is, but boy is that an interesting contrast.

Spoom 9mo ago

> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else. Frankly, yes, please. I mean, I'm biased as my whole career is in web app development, but there are so many things these days that do not need a whole native app. They're just communicating with a server backend somewhere, using none of the unique native functionality of the phone (much of which is available in browser APIs these days anyway). I can block ads in a web app much more easily. It's much harder to do customer-hostile things like block screenshots in a web app. Native apps definitely have a place, but I think they're very overused, mostly for reasons that benefit the business at the expense of the customer.

BiteCode_dev 9mo ago
Apple makes sure it's not practical. You still can't have a "share to" target that is a web app on iOS. And the data your can store in local storage on safari is a joke. Of course, forget about background tasks and integrated notifications. In fact, even on Android you miss features with web apps, like widgets for quick actions, mapping actions to buttons and so on. And no matter how good you cache things, the mobile browser will unload the app, and you will always get this friction when you load the web app on the new render you don't have on regular apps.
- mircerlancerous 9mo ago
  Service workers solve the cache issue; web apps can run permanently offline after initial load. You may be a bit out of date on the state of the web.
  - BiteCode_dev 9mo ago
    No, I use them but loading and unloading the app in the tab still happens when the browser flushes the app from memory because the OS killed it or the browser eviction policy hits. This loading is not nearly as seamless as a regular app starting back up. For a regular app, you have the app loading, and the os cache helping with it. If you do your job half correctly, it loads as a block almost instantly. For a web app you have the web browser loading, the the display of the white viewport in a flash, then the app loading in the browser (with zero os cache to help with so it's slower). It needs then to render. Then restoring the scroll (which is a mess with a browser) and the state as much as you can but you are limited with persistence size so most content must be reloaded which means the layout is moving around. Not to mention JS in a browser is not nearly as performant as a regular app, so as your app grows, it gets worse.

Almondsetat 9mo ago

You couldn't make that argument because Patreon is also a platform to host content, not just send money. If it was something like a twitch donation app the argument would make more sense

dboreham 9mo ago
The hosting aspect is only necessary because a) piracy and b) Google would eat their lunch if they were the gate keeper to content. Bit like how Ticketmaster takes all the money from artists because they get to say who sits in a seat.
Already__Taken 9mo ago
You could if they built a donation & support trading app separate from the content app?

josephcsible 9mo ago

> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else. This is why Apple makes PWAs so miserable in Safari and disallows other browsers unless they're just Safari with lipstick.

barnas2 9mo ago

> You could make the argument that Patreon isn't much more than a banking app. Don't give them any ideas.

rkagerer 9mo ago

Next up, Apple starts taking a cut of every money transfer you do with your banking app.

H1Supreme 9mo ago
Isn't that exactly what this is? Except they're targeting a single app.
hermanzegerman 9mo ago
They do with Apple Pay, and don't allow Banks to roll with their own system like on Android

direwolf20 9mo ago

Apple users seem to be fine with everything being much more expensive. Not only the 30% apple tax itself, developers know Apple users pay more and specify higher prices on Apple.

jama211 9mo ago
30% is also the cut google takes on the google play store. This is not an apple only issue. This is a regulatory one.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  Google allows out–of–store installation (for now...) so it's much easier to argue there's competition. Apps installed through F–Droid don't have this tax.
  - jama211 9mo ago
    And in the EU alternative app stores are allowed on iphone as well. In both cases, it’s a near negligible amount of people that use them. Your exceptions prove the rule, if anything.
    - thejazzman 9mo ago
      This would not be true if all markets rose simultaneously. It’s why they all fight so hard to delay the inevitable. You don’t have to win, you just have to win for long enough to be established

crabmusket 9mo ago

Imagine seeing a popup banner in an app each time you open it that interrupts whatever you're trying to do to say "open on our website!" (Apple's censorship notwithstanding)