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

Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 234 posts

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#101

Post by morganvachon »

ernesth wrote: post #84
nspkr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very careful with this option, as it's based in the EU which means free speech is not considered; that makes it a very dangerous option for podcast and youtube creators, opinion bloggers, etc.

Seeing as patreon, paypal, visa refuse clients because of their beliefs (alt-right) or their sexuality (which would be illegal in Europe), the US do not have free speech either

The US does have freedom of speech at the federal government level; i.e. the government is not supposed to repress speech. However, it appears the parent is intentionally conflating freedom of speech and a private entity's right to censor their own platform. One has literally nothing to do with the other; private entities in the US and abroad are largely free to run their platforms as they choose, including censoring content that violates their rules, and banning users who don't comply.

The parent likely knows this, and yet chooses to deliberately misinform in their comment.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#102

Post by SquareWheel »

ernesth wrote: post #84
nspkr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very careful with this option, as it's based in the EU which means free speech is not considered; that makes it a very dangerous option for podcast and youtube creators, opinion bloggers, etc.

Seeing as patreon, paypal, visa refuse clients because of their beliefs (alt-right) or their sexuality (which would be illegal in Europe), the US do not have free speech either

They might have free speech, but they have no means of getting paid for their speech.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#103

Post by oliwarner »

Steam takes 30%. Apple, Google Play take 30%. Physical stores can eat 60% unless you're selling something that's demonstrably saleable. Those sorts of markups aren't at all weird for access to a market...

And that's what it is, as SatvikBeri has already said. People typically don't go to Patreon to find new content. They consume the content elsewhere (YouTube, Facebook, etc) and then go to Patreon. Facebook et al are packaging together a huge userbase as well as a very targeted marketing service amounts.

In the big scheme of things —because I'm sure some people do browse— Patreon is just the money processor.

Edit: Should also point out that YouTube has a similar system. Users can pay 100K-sub channels a fixed £4.99/month and Google keeps 30%. It's all about the point of contact. YouTube, Facebook, established app markets, etc all have near-monopoly access to people. That's why they can demand the big bucks.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#104

Post by pavlov »

stale2002 wrote: post #85
pavlov wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the same logic, YouTube creators should only use YT to build an audience, then switch to hosting their own videos. Yet they want to remain on the platform.

Video hosting costs a lot of money. Sending an API request, to the credit card company, to bill the monthly payment, does not cost a lot of money. Getting your audience to switch platforms for the monthly payments is a compartively easy thing to do, compared to setting up your own video hosting site.

More to the point, neither is very easy to do in practice.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#105

Post by AstralStorm »

lobster45 wrote: post #60
pravda wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but Apple and Google have monopolies. Not a "gamer", so I don't really know what "Steam" is/does, but I suspect they must have some kind of moat. I'm not sure that people are comfortable with Patreon taking a 10% cut. I'm not happy about eBay taking a 10% cut, but they have a monopoly. Jack Ma, please bring Taobao to USA!

Steam is a platform for video games and is by far the leader in this market. They do have some competition, and their take is 30%

About the only places I'd call actual competitors... Are none. Nobody is close to 10% of Steam sales and specialized in video games. They are a monopoly and will push the price. They cannot push it too much or a cheaper small store might overtake them, but competition is not the force setting the price. The cost of switching is. The network effect strength are.

Maybe someone in China could, but they don't directly compete.

GoG has a niche they're trying to expand, as does Humble. A few other small stores. Game company ones (EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft) are not even close. Funny enough, the small shops often resell Steam keys...

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#106

Post by AstralStorm »

on_and_off wrote: post #49
pravda wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but Apple and Google have monopolies. Not a "gamer", so I don't really know what "Steam" is/does, but I suspect they must have some kind of moat. I'm not sure that people are comfortable with Patreon taking a 10% cut. I'm not happy about eBay taking a 10% cut, but they have a monopoly. Jack Ma, please bring Taobao to USA!

It should be mentioned that Steam's monopoly is assulted by new players like Epic with a 12% cut. Which might be for the best, Steam is in dire need of a serious competitor (I know GOG and co exist but sadly they have not been able to make a real dent in Steam's marketshare). Steam has dropped so many balls and the main thing going for them is inertia. Also, just because paying a large cut to various middlemen is com…

It is not even close to assaulted. It is not inertia, but network effects and completeness of package offered by Steam, as well as resale deals.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#107

Post by rjtavares »

yorwba wrote: post #92
nspkr wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many countries in the EU have blasphemy laws and the European Court of Human Rights says they are okay: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr... If someone criticised Jesus Christ in their podcast (for example), they would be putting Liberapay at risk. I don't believe Liberapay would allow that, so they'd just ban the user. That's what makes Liberapay a risky option.

That podcaster might be ordered to cease the blasphemy, and if they don't comply their website might be blocked, but I don't think that puts Liberapay at risk if they don't operate as a publishing platform but only handle payments. That woman didn't lose her bank account, did she?

In any case, European countries don't have blasphemy laws (there might be exceptions to this - I know Ireland had it until recently).

That case the parent linked is about defamation (calling Muhammed a paedophile), not blasphemy (for example saying Muhammed was not a prophet).

EDIT: so I was wrong. See the comments below.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#108

Post by imtringued »

tapland wrote: post #31
pravda wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but Apple and Google have monopolies. Not a "gamer", so I don't really know what "Steam" is/does, but I suspect they must have some kind of moat. I'm not sure that people are comfortable with Patreon taking a 10% cut. I'm not happy about eBay taking a 10% cut, but they have a monopoly. Jack Ma, please bring Taobao to USA!

Steam is, despite there being a lot of competition, the de facto one stop shop for digitally distributed PC video games (and is in itself a kind of DRM protection). I think that a large proportion of gamers would be happy for almost all of the competition to disappear in favor of getting everything on the Steam platform.

Keeping Valve in check is worth the friction. Today they might be benevolent now but when Gabe Newell is gone they will have same problems as Apple because Steve Jobs is gone. There is a high risk a new CEO will just be a paperclip maximizer.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#109

Post by AstralStorm »

michaelmrose wrote: post #72
zone411 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would make the most sense for creators to have accounts on both Patreon and Facebook.

Alternatively you could pay to promote your work on facebook which you will have to do anyway and take payment on patreon.

Which will be promptly banned and your Facebook privileges revoked. Like YouTube tries to.

Welcome to walled gardens.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#110

Post by corobo »

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #81
duskwuff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple and Google provide significant added value in their app stores: distribution, discoverability, licensing, testing (at least in Apple's case)... etc. Patreon is not that. At its heart, it's primarily a service for collecting donations. There is some content hosting, but that's kind of a secondary feature.

What content can you host on Patreon? I only really have experience with authors and text is cheap to host. Can you host video?

Video no, but you can host audio. They have functionality that lets you set up a patron-exclusive podcast for example
Post reply on HN