Nostr and Zaps, problem solved.
Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
471–480 of 944 posts
Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say that in the case of Patreon, any fee for Apple is unjustified. Apple can justify their fee on app purchases/subscriptions in the app store, but Patreon is not an app subscription, the money goes mostly from the patrons to the people they support. Ok, Patreon takes a cut to cover their operating costs, and also make a profit (not sure how profitable they are currently), but I really can't see how Apple, who do…
If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement. If you were a chain store in a high end mall where customers cars were all parked for free by valets, mall staff knew their names, and generally made them feel…
I don’t think anyone suggests Apple should get nothing for their app store services, just that it shouldn’t be 30% of every transaction processed through every iOS app.
Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say that in the case of Patreon, any fee for Apple is unjustified. Apple can justify their fee on app purchases/subscriptions in the app store, but Patreon is not an app subscription, the money goes mostly from the patrons to the people they support. Ok, Patreon takes a cut to cover their operating costs, and also make a profit (not sure how profitable they are currently), but I really can't see how Apple, who do…
If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement. If you were a chain store in a high end mall where customers cars were all parked for free by valets, mall staff knew their names, and generally made them feel…
> If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.
When I paid over $1000 to buy an iPhone I thought I was buying a technological product that I could use to improve my life.
I didn’t realize I was buying a ticket to Disneyland where the seller of the product decided how I interacted with everything the device enabled.
I don’t think this should be disallowed. I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.
Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might not be competitive but it’s totally voluntary. No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter, so clearly consumers are willing and able to pay this. The consumer is willing to pay the price based on the perceived value from the App Store
The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
> The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
Collective action by the creators would help.
All they have to do is dual-host (a fairly trivial matter, compared to organised collective action). What would make things even better is if they dual host on a competing platform and specify in their content that the competing platform charges lower fees. If even 10% of the creators did this:
1. Many of the consumers would switch. 2. Many of the creators not on the competing platform would also offer dual-hosting.
The problem is not "As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set". The problem is the mindset that their content is not their own.
I say it's their mindset, because they certainly don't act as if they own the content - when your content is available only via a single channel, you don't own your content, you are simply a supplier for that channel.
Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
You quoted a sentence fragment that, when read in isolation, conveys a position I emphatically reject. To answer your question directly: I contend that when it comes to operating a marketplace for interactive entertainment, an iPhone is no different from a Nintendo Switch, and if you want to impose rules, they must be imposed equally. For all other apps, I think Epic made some valid points.
The quote was not intended to frame your position in any particular manner. Simply to provide context so it was clear what I was responding to. I take two issues with your response. First and foremost, the point I raised was specifically about the size of an operation relative to the overall market. You haven't addressed that. You say you see no difference but don't explain why. It seems obvious to me that larger pla…
> It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players
I agree with this in principle, but I don't think that principle applies here. Apple is not a uniquely large vendor of games. There are multiple ecosystems operating at similar orders of magnitude in games sales, at around $10B or more. Against that backdrop, portraying the App Store as some singular 400-pound gorilla with respect to games is not accurate.
> Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market
That distinction cuts the other way. A general-purpose market does not escape product-specific regulation; it applies it selectively. A store that sells liquor must comply with liquor laws when selling liquor, but selling liquor does not prohibit it from selling candy to children. It is normal and reasonable to attach rules to the product being sold, not to the fact that the venue also sells other things.
Perhaps if Apple were willing to exclude games from the App Store and move them to a newly created Game Store, it would be easier to imagine how they could be made subject to different rules. But I don't think that should be necessary for the government to impose different rules on different product categories.
To be clear, another acceptable outcome IMO is for the Epic Games argument to prevail with respect to all major gaming platforms. If they believe Apple deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on iOS, then Sony deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on Playstation.
Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does make sense to highlight, because this kind of statistic is a very strong indicator that the market is not competitive. This is not a normal kind of profit margin and basically everyone except for Apple would benefit from them lowering the margins. In normal markets there are competitors who force each other to keep reasonable profit margins and to improve their product as opposed to milking other people's har…
Might not be competitive but it’s totally voluntary. No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter, so clearly consumers are willing and able to pay this. The consumer is willing to pay the price based on the perceived value from the App Store
> No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter
"No one needs app" is not the same as "No one has biological mandatory need to have an app"
Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
What really makes it uncomfortable is that Apple isn't just a neutral marketplace. They control the OS, the distribution channel, and the payment rails, so creators and platforms like Patreon can't realistically opt out
They could opt out - by sticking to web platforms. Apple cannot charge for that. However, apple does attempt to gimp the web platforms on mobile to "subtly" push for apps.
They do and it’s awful. I’m making a browser based game and it works great on desktop browsers but Apple refuses to allow css filters on canvas forcing you to build your own filters and apply them to image data. The web audio api is also a pain to get working properly on iOS safari and a bunch of other arbitrary but feels like they’re intentional obstacles found only on iOS. I’m almost considering just using webgl instead of a 2d context but who knows what obstacles apple is hiding there also it will make everything so much more verbose for no real gain.
Not even in the days of IE was I ever this frustrated.
Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
What really makes it uncomfortable is that Apple isn't just a neutral marketplace. They control the OS, the distribution channel, and the payment rails, so creators and platforms like Patreon can't realistically opt out
They could opt out - by sticking to web platforms. Apple cannot charge for that. However, apple does attempt to gimp the web platforms on mobile to "subtly" push for apps.
The whole Epic vs Apple was about Apple blocking this. Before being slapped by regulators, Apple had anti-steering policies forbidding iOS apps from even mentioning that purchasing elsewhere is possible.
Even after EU DSA told them to allow purchases via Web, Apple literally demanded a 27% cut from purchases happening outside of App Store (and then a bunch of other arrogantly greedy fee structures that keeps them in courts).
Apple knows how hard is not to be in the duopoly of app stores. They keep web apps half-assed, won't direct users to them, but allow knock-off apps to use your trademarks in their search keywords.
Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could opt out - by sticking to web platforms. Apple cannot charge for that. However, apple does attempt to gimp the web platforms on mobile to "subtly" push for apps.
Why could Apple not charge a percentage for any user using their mobile device? Why would it be limited to app store?
Because they don't control those. Apple could choose to only allow users to access websites that pay them a bit 30% fee, but users would notice the web was turned off on their device. They don't notice when the app store does it.
Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what about my banking app! I think it’s only fair Apple take 30% on every transaction I make. After all they put in a huge amount of work validating and making sure my banking app is safe and functional. Edit: Maybe I am greedy now, but it would be nice if large transactions like say buying a house only would cost me a 15% transaction fee to Apple.
Large transactions are riskier, let’s give them 45%. After all, I’d really hate to see their margins suffer.
Who's downvoting this? When you think online sarcasm is so obvious that no-one could believe it, someone's always there to prove otherwise