Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

news.patreon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

#601

Post by Terretta »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #555
Terretta wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was an open platform, then Apple couldn't charge any more than Steam which is on an open platform, because nobody would pay that much unless forced to. Wait, Steam charges more? Never mind.

Your "nobody" is doing all the work. Steam distributes to Windows, but you aren't required to use Steam to distribute to Windows, and then many people don't . Adobe isn't paying Valve to distribute their suite. Epic doesn't use it for Fortnite. Random enterprise software developers have nothing to do with it. It's like pointing to the existence of people who willingly buy a BMW as a justification for forcing everyone…

Adobe isn't paying Apple either.

You buy Adobe from Adobe, "Get" Adobe from Apple, and log in with an email.

Also, a minority of consumers by headcount choose Apple. A majority of wallet share is spent by those who do choose it. That's behind most of the sour grapes.

Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

#602

Post by [deleted] »

jjcm wrote: post #233

In my eyes the most egregious aspect of this is it’s a financial transaction between two people that they’re taking a 30% cut of. I see 30% as fine for things like IAP for digital games and such, but somehow in this lens it feels wrong. One proposal for a compromise that would feel fair: Apple gets 30% of the app creator’s take rate. IE if patreon’s take rate is 8%, Apple should get 30% of that , not 30% of the full…

[deleted]

Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

#603

Post by sa-code »

egypturnash wrote: post #493
jprete wrote: post #10

I remember reading that per-creation billing is a very important feature for Patreon creators, because it removes the moral obligation to produce content just to justify a subscription. If Patreon really doesn't want to kill the feature itself, but is just responding to Apple's enforcement, then it seems like a really clear illustration of monopoly power - pushing unrelated markets to change their own structure and p…

Patreon has been trying to kill it for like half the time I've been using Patreon. They haven't offered it as an option for new campaigns for years, and their last redesign completely removed what little data was available in the web UI - you wanna know how much money you can expect? Download a CSV and do it yourself, we can't be bothered to give you even the simplest data of "your next three posts will be worth $x,…

Off topic: this was really entertaining to read, thanks

Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

#604

Post by zik »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #525
mcguire wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are aware that you cannot purchase ebooks through the Amazon apps on Android, right? What you say may be true today, but tomorrow is unknown territory as far as these sorts of agreements go.

I can purchase ebooks on my Amazon Kindle Fire that runs Amazon apps on Android fine. I bet I would also be able to purchase ebooks on the Amazon Kindle app installed from the Amazon Appstore on my Google Pixel phone.

Your bet would be wrong - they stopped allowing that a little while back. It's annoying.

Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

#606

Post by jcranmer »

danShumway wrote: post #501
s1artibartfast wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair is what two consenting adults agree to in the market place. >does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? I will. If most apple users refuse to go outside the app store for their content, Than clearly they care more about the ease of access than the content itself. I agree that the high prop…

> If most apple users refuse to go outside the app store for their content, Than clearly they care more about the ease of access than the content itself. Does Apple's refusal to allow apps to tell users about lower prices elsewhere make this claim more likely to be true or less likely to be true? If this is a free choice that consumers are making, why does Apple need to hide it from them? I'm reminded of the same arg…

This is kind of the crux of the matter to me. Apple, in this instance, is basically a credit card with a 30% transaction fee, and it's using its dominance in the mobile phone market to force everyone who uses their phone (via their app store policies) to use their credit cards instead of ones with 3% transaction fees, which is pretty classic behavior outlawed by antitrust legislation.

Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

#607

Post by danShumway »

wkat4242 wrote: post #592
danShumway wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're suggesting that Steam doesn't have an effective monopoly on the PC market, I have bad news for you. One of the biggest differences between Steam and Apple is that Steam does a better job of hiding the effects from users who will lash out at creators who talk about problems on the platform. An indie creator I follow recently implored fans to buy their next game on Steam and not other platforms... because in…

I always buy on Gog first because they really care about the user. No DRM, the ability to download safe copies in case some lawsuit happens and things get pulled out (e.g. like half the music in GTA San Andreas!). I understand you as a creator prefer steam but I wouldn't obey that, sorry. Also, reinforcing their market position is not in my best interest as a consumer.

I think you may have accidentally misread my post, or maybe I didn't word it carefully enough (in which case I apologize for the confusion). I don't prefer Steam. As a consumer, on principle in most cases I refuse to buy from it.

Steam effectively punishes creators for not steering users towards their monopoly, and they have a ton of tools for user lock-in: Steam Input, Steam Workshop, etc... They may not be as egregious as Apple, but they are often pretty egregious in their own right.

In a normal market, having a diverse set of users across multiple platforms would be a good thing as a creator, it would give you security and give each platform less power over you. Steam uses their review system to punish smaller creators who have a diverse userbase, and it uses their response to cement its market dominance even more and to give itself more power over those creators and their players. I would argue this is bad for the market.

My bigger point here is that Apple advocates will sometimes point to Steam and say "they charge high fees too, what's the problem?" There's are multiple reasons that Steam is able to charge higher fees than most of its PC competitors and remain the dominant platform for PC games, some of them due to the way that it methodically weaponizes incentives for both players and creators against alternatives. Comparing Apple to Steam does not make me like Apple more.

Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

#608

Post by Terretta »

danShumway wrote: post #554
Terretta wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was an open platform, then Apple couldn't charge any more than Steam which is on an open platform, because nobody would pay that much unless forced to. Wait, Steam charges more? Never mind.

If you're suggesting that Steam doesn't have an effective monopoly on the PC market, I have bad news for you. One of the biggest differences between Steam and Apple is that Steam does a better job of hiding the effects from users who will lash out at creators who talk about problems on the platform. An indie creator I follow recently implored fans to buy their next game on Steam and not other platforms... because in…

> If you're suggesting that Steam doesn't have an effective monopoly on the PC market, I have bad news for you.

Not what I'm suggesting. In fact, you're making my case beautifully.

I'm agreeing that the PC being "open" isn't what makes the difference.

People are barking up the wrong tree. Your argument is much as the one I made elsewhere in this thread for why there's Amazon when there's Alibaba, and Amazon can charge not percentages more, but many times the price, for same products.

Tangentially, "imploring" people reminds me: I encourage Mac and iPhone toting friends to try SetApp. It's like Apple Arcade but for utilities. It's not from Apple, and people are confused it works for iOS. Once they try it, they set it and forget it. I don't know if it's working for the app owners there, but the value/reward seems much more balanced than the world where every widget wants $119.88 to 239.88 a year (12 x $19.99).

Less tangentially, there are ways to exploit users and ways to add value. The second is harder.

Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

#609

Post by johnnyanmac »

brookst wrote: post #476
danShumway wrote: post #389

Another point that Patreon isn't really emphasizing here that seems relevant to any conversations about "fairness" is that Apple's fees on Patreon subscriptions in-app are now higher than Patreon's fees. It's important to recognize any time that we're talking about the market that services charge what they can, not what is fair. The market does not have a concept of fairness, only competition. This is why there is no…

> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does? I'll bite, kind of. People get emotional about particular companies so let's abstract them away: is it possible for a second-tier distributor to bring more value to a first-tier distributor than the first-tier brings to suppliers? Looking at it that…

>is it possible for a second-tier distributor to bring more value to a first-tier distributor than the first-tier brings to suppliers?

In the sense that [bigger company] can make more money and reach more people than [smaller company], yes. But if all they are doing is sitting there and using that bigger presence, you can see how that roads ends in antitrust.

>The economics would suggest that Patreon should do away with their iOS app, focus iOS users on the web, and everyone would be ahead.

two big issues.

1. No one wins. Users lose the convinience of an app, Apple loses money from a potential large customer, Patreon loses views from being visible on the app store. It's just bad buzz all around for no good reason.

2. The underselling point that Apple has actively sabatoged web apps and PWA's which is part of why the DMA is coming down hard on them. We're well past a monopolistic power using its power to stifle competition.

Let's not pretend this trillion dollar company that already forces devs to use IOS hardware to develop (and took down their server OS's to boot), and charges a yearly membership to dev is scaping for cash here.

Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon

#610

Post by ksec »

lapcat wrote: post #551
DataDive wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

I dont think, the customer, or in your example "you" does not even come into the equation.

It is straightly Apple and Patreon. And in terns of Apple, they do think Patreon is accessing their customer base ( You ) and hence they want a cut of it.

Post reply on HN