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…
> 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. Unfortunately this is in the nature of suppliers and retailers. Supermarkets make more profit on a litre of milk than farmers. Way way way more. Because they know farmers in practice have to sell _all_ their milk,…
Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
701–710 of 1001 posts
Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
#702Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that consumer ownership rights to their computers are the more pressing issue, but Apple should probably also be broken up. The problem is how to do that without destroying the value they bring to consumers, i.e. where do you draw the lines internally?
I don't think it's possible to break them up without immense value destruction.
Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
#703As a longtime YouTube creator who uses Patreon for financial support, the news is terrible: Patreon informed me that all creators must switch to a monthly subscription schedule instead of the per-creation schedule that I and many other currently use. The whole point of per-creation is that it allows me to take time off, and only charge people when I release something, thus incentivizing me, and being fair to my suppo…
Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
#704Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The economics would suggest that Patreon should do away with their iOS app, focus iOS users on the web, and everyone would be ahead. Apple doesn’t let web apps do everything that native apps can do. Their App Store is the only way people get apps on their device and if a search for ‘patreon’ in the App Store returns nothing, that’s a lot of confused or angry people that are going to wonder what their monthly bill i…
> Their App Store is the only way people get apps on their device and if a search for ‘patreon’ in the App Store returns nothing, that’s a lot of confused or angry people that are going to wonder what their monthly bill is for. I just searched the App Store for Patreon: The top hit was an ad for Ashley Madison. Seriously. The second hit was the Patreon app. The third hit was ChatGPT for some reason. But if the Patreo…
Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
#705Earlier 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? For people who would never give Patreon money by going to Patreon’s website? Sure, why not? That sounds like a niche market that Patreon would be completely unable to participate in without Apple’s help.
Sounds like a fun experiment. I'd be interested in Apple allowing Patreon to test that theory by disabling purchases within the app. Is this really about access to a niche user group of users who would never sign up elsewhere? Apple seems to be very invested in forcing Patreon to either not be in the app store at all (and given the limitations of web apps, this is a significant penalty), or offer exclusively Apple pa…
Well yeah, the charitable interpretation is that of course Apple thinks their users will have a worse experience on average with subscriptions outside Apple’s ecosystem than inside of it. And it’s hard to disagree!
Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
#706Earlier 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? Well, there is a simple way to test this... just get rid of the Patreon iOS app and just use a web version. Why does patreon need its own app? Why can't it just be web based? I wish fewer companies had apps. I don't need an app for everything. I don'…
> Why does patreon need its own app? Why can't it just be web based? because apple gimps their web browser capabilities & performance to incentivize developers to enter the walled garden
Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
#707Earlier 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? 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…
> The economics would suggest that Patreon should do away with their iOS app, focus iOS users on the web, and everyone would be ahead. Apple doesn’t let web apps do everything that native apps can do. Their App Store is the only way people get apps on their device and if a search for ‘patreon’ in the App Store returns nothing, that’s a lot of confused or angry people that are going to wonder what their monthly bill i…
Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only people who have zero understanding of the value of distribution in business would write this. Apple provides tremendous value to app developers.
If we were having this conversation in the late 1800s I'm pretty sure that you would be arguing to me right now that the trans-continental railroad provides "tremendous value" to shippers. It's become an increasingly common argument in discussions about Apple to phrase their value as one of "distribution", or sometimes less subtly as "access." But no one would ever credibly argue that the actual physical distribution…
It also kept the price of kerosene low for the consumer.
If it was broke up it would also hurt the economy overall. They also argued it wasn't really a monopoly and they have other competition lol.
Tech companies are such a brilliant monopoly they get the consumer to mindlessly puppet Rockefeller's exact points for them.
Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
#709Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Apple's change do anything at all to help alleviate any of the concerns you have? You have fewer subscriptions options for creators (1st-of-month billing and per-release billing is going away, despite the fact that creators regularly use them to simplify the experience for subscribers). You're going to pay more (I promise you, creators on Patreon are not rich enough to swallow a 30% transaction fee on iOS subscr…
> is providing infinite value Not infinite value, just any value versus 0 value. IE: infinitely times 0 is less than 0.0000001%. So the same relationship is true if you’re using Firefox to access Patron. Apple charging fees is definitely a reason to drop Apple, but you personally can’t force creators to drop Patron which is why they can be so toxic.
I'm not a fan of Patreon by any means, but it seems pretty silly to me to argue that Patreon offers literally zero value to consumers. Patreon's interface is still better than using Paypal to subscribe to a creator. Patreon still offers me as a user a modicum of privacy, I don't have to give my billing address to every creator that I support.
You don't have to like the platform, but zero value? Do you really believe that?
> but you personally can’t force creators to drop Patron which is why they can be so toxic.
I also want to push back on this a little bit. I know creators on Patreon, and most of them don't like the platform. You know why they use Patreon? Because it's the only place anybody goes to subscribe to content. If you set up a Ko-Fi account as a creator, you will receive a fraction of the subscriber-base that you'll receive on Patreon.
I'm not saying this to say that Patreon is somehow justified in its abusive behavior, but it's kinda silly to argue that the only reason Patreon is popular is because creators prefer it. Subscriber preferences play a huge role in this, and the fact is that most subscribers refuse to use alternatives.
If creators felt confident that they could move to platforms like Ko-Fi, Gumroad, Subscribestar, Librepay, etc without permanently losing all of their subscribers, they would. They'd leave in a heartbeat. Fewer fees, better websites, less VC-weirdness: creators don't really like Patreon. And many of would be able to move if it was worth their while; Patreon doesn't (as far as I know) have any restrictions on joining parallel donation platforms. But every time I've seen a creator do that, the majority of their revenue continues to come through Patreon. Subscribers refuse to leave the platform even when other options are being advertised to them.
There is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg problem in that some creators end up only using Patreon because it's the only platform that brings in enough revenue to make it worth their while, which in turn means it's the only place to subscribe to them -- and yes, that can help reinforce network effects as well. But the biggest thing keeping creators on Patreon is consumers themselves.
If you want creators to leave Patreon, you do actually have at least a small amount of agency over that: find the creators you follow that are on multiple subscription platforms, and subscribe to them on those alternative platforms. By and large, most consumers are not willing to do that.
Re: Apple's requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon
#710Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The US will let corproations do whatever they want until they are 1990s Microsoft-level dominant. *The US will let corporations do whatever they want while they are giving "gifts" and "gratuities" to the relevant judges.
while they are giving "gifts" and "gratuities" to the relevant judges There is a lot of corruption in the US. So yes, at times, they will allow that too. But in this case, the commenter was correct. We can't be going into courts of law making poop up. Going into a court of law and saying that a company with 27% market share in phones and 13% market share in PCs is a "monopoly" is almost on the level of being insultin…
I was an iPhone guy. Switching to Android was honestly trivial.
Apples biggest crime IMO is doing everything possible to hide the 30% tax from common knowledge, not that they charge it.