Live data from Hacker News

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

news.patreon.com

121–130 of 1001 posts

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

#121
post #80

As 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…

I've seen some creators on Patreon "pause" their monthly subscription when they have nothing to release on a given month, so that patrons won't be billed for that month. That could be a workaround for your use case.

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

#122

The world where Apple is just completely fine with Apple users paying $13 instead of $10 for a subscription if they do it through an app is an interesting one. Obviously this makes a lot of money for them but when you think about it they must think very little of their customers treating them with disrespect like this. This is how 'Tim Cook's Apple' should be remembered.

The App Store model was specifically implemented and approved by Steve Jobs. There's old internal e-mails from him complaining about Amazon's reader app making it too easy to buy books without paying the (increasingly literal) Apple Tax. In fact, the reason why antitrust lawsuits seem to never stick to Apple is because all the mens rea was stored in the mind of a guy who tried to cure his pancreatic cancer with fruit…

>In fact, the reason why antitrust lawsuits seem to never stick to Apple is because all the mens rea was stored in the mind of a guy who tried to cure his pancreatic cancer with fruit juice[0]

You don't need antitrust. Just consumer rights.

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

#123
post #21

I think it's fair to take a fee for payments through Apple's infrastructure... but 30% is egregious.

Patreon doesn't currently and doesn't want to us Apple's infrastructure. They're being "forced" to do so, hence this post.

Putting it in quotes is misleading, they are actually being forced:

> Apple has also made clear that if creators on Patreon continue to use unsupported billing models or disable transactions in the iOS app, we will be at risk of having the entire app removed from their App Store.

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

#124
post #96
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 also stands to gain from this change. Come think of it, the new arrangement is a win for everyone involved - except the actual patrons ofcourse.

How can they gain after losing 30% to Apple?

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

#125
Since at least the 1980s, IT had the concepts of "open systems" and "interoperation", to support market competition and innovation. And we later did things like the Web and other open standards.

Then Apple comes along, and uses its market position as a hardware and OS vendor, to make a nonstandard software download thing that could've been a Web site.

In parallel, Apple also made open-standards Web apps unattractive on their hardware in various ways. (Often through foot-dragging when other vendors were trying to make Web apps a smooth experience, but sometimes also going out of their way to make Web work worse.) (See also: making kids look like losers to their peers in chat, if they don't have iPhones.)

Apple then imposes predatory rates and terms on other businesses who are pretty much forced to use the Apple proprietary app store, due not to the merits of the app store so much as Apple's dominance of hardware and conflict of interest when implementing open standards.

I assume many consumers don't understand the situation, and how much of an overbearing abuser of its market position Apple can be. Or they have some idea, but pragmatically have to accept it. Also, this affords Apple a lot of money for really first-rate PR.

What I don't understand is why regulators haven't smacked the snot out of the Apple app store, with finality. For example: Apple may only charge a few-percent administration and payment processing fee, and that's it; and they have to permit other app stores with first-class access to the system, as a compromise given the proprietary lock-in mess they've made. (Making them support other open standards better, even to the exclusion of prorietary ones, is more complicated.)

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

#126
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Apples case they changed that several years ago so you can definitely charge your Apple users more. However you will get the app rejected if you show any sign of showing users that you can buy it cheaper elsewhere than the Apple system. You can potentially get away with it by keeping things vague, but even then you might get rejected for “discouraging the in-app purchase system”. This doesnt apply to the EU in whi…

I don't think that's unreasonable - the user found your app through apple. Imagine if I sold tools, and I hung out in Home Depot next to our tools display telling people "hey, if you buy them directly from me, you can save 30%" I can't see that lasting very long.

When was the last time you bought any large item from a physical store that didn't come with advertisements in the packaging for direct services?

If you buy a Disney DVD from Walmart, there will be advertisements inside the DVD case for direct services (heck, last time I checked there were ads on the outside of the case). If you buy a Roomba from Walmart, there will be advertisements for direct parts and addons from the manufacturer. If you buy a hecking Apple Ipad from Walmart, Apple will include advertisements for its direct services once you start using the product.

People bring up this comparison all the time and it's very simply not true. You can advertise direct services inside physical products you sell at stores. What Apple is saying is not that you can't advertise prices in the store page, Apple is saying that you can't advertise alternative platforms in the app itself.

There is no physical equivalent to this for storefronts like Walmart. Home Depot does not have a restriction on whether a physical product you buy from them can have an advertisement for direct manufacturer services inside the box or software that comes with it.

If we want to be consistent about this, Apple really should be paying Walmart a fee for any app-store purchases made on devices that were bought from Walmart. After all, the user got the device from Walmart, right? Shouldn't they get their cut of app store purchases? That's how Apple sees the world.

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

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too, but shockingly there are a lot of people who don't have a computer, just a phone. I even know people in their 40s like this.

Phones usually have a web browser installed.

mmmhmmm, indeed. You need to consider the mentality of the people who chose to live this way. Most don't want want to type an address into a browser, ever, they want to tap an app.

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

#129
post #80

As 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…

It’s bad, yes. It would be good if Patreon allowed sticking with the billing systems which Apple is forbidding, but I do understand that they may no longer be able to justify the business expense of maintaining them given the anticipated changes in usage patterns. Practical suggestion: Maybe you can project a certain number of releases per year, reduce that projection slightly to give yourself a margin of flexibility…

Yes, it's a reasonable workaround. I believe Patreon also allows creators to "pause" their account, suspending payments for an indefinite amount of time. So, I could just keep the account paused, then unpause for a month when I make a video. Although, I believe that Patreon doesn't want the per-creation model themselves, since charging the same amount each month is simpler, and easier to project revenue, etc, so they are probably just bundling this unpopular change with the Apple announcement.

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

#130
post #9

Absurd. What next, they want a 30% cut from me when I set up automatic payments for my credit card through the banks iOS app?

No! They want 30% of your net worth each time you connect to your bank over the internet using an Apple device.

Interesting that is exactly what investment specialists do…
Post reply on HN