Live data from Hacker News

Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

macrumors.com

601–610 of 944 posts

Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

#601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Presumably you also would agree that it's fair if Chrome, Windows, and Lenovo all charged me 30% each for using Patreon via Chrome+Windows on a thinkpad, right? They're doing about as much to facilitate my use of Patreon as Apple is. This isn't like a mall at all. This is like a web browser, where apps are webpages, and Apple is insisting that the contents of that webpage are something they can dictate all payment te…

> certainly found elsewhere

I agree that if someone discovered the artist elsewhere, Apple has weaker standing in claiming a huge commission. But if they found an artist elsewhere, they would also know that they can support that artist elsewhere and not through the iOS app. If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.

Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

#602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or setup payments through the website

Is it still true that Apple bans you from telling users, in app, they can pay through alternative platforms?

I think it depends on the laws controlling Apple where you live

Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

#603
post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make the argument that Patreon isn't much more than a banking app. It just focuses on the receiver of the money than the sender. I think Apple is slowly killing apps with this policy. Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else. This will likely be much stronger in countries where iPhones do not have the same market share as in the US.

> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else. Frankly, yes, please. I mean, I'm biased as my whole career is in web app development, but there are so many things these days that do not need a whole native app . They're just communicating with a server backend somewhere, using none of the unique native functionality of the phone (much of which is available in…

Apple makes sure it's not practical.

You still can't have a "share to" target that is a web app on iOS. And the data your can store in local storage on safari is a joke.

Of course, forget about background tasks and integrated notifications.

In fact, even on Android you miss features with web apps, like widgets for quick actions, mapping actions to buttons and so on.

And no matter how good you cache things, the mobile browser will unload the app, and you will always get this friction when you load the web app on the new render you don't have on regular apps.

Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

#604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably you also would agree that it's fair if Chrome, Windows, and Lenovo all charged me 30% each for using Patreon via Chrome+Windows on a thinkpad, right? They're doing about as much to facilitate my use of Patreon as Apple is. This isn't like a mall at all. This is like a web browser, where apps are webpages, and Apple is insisting that the contents of that webpage are something they can dictate all payment te…

> certainly found elsewhere I agree that if someone discovered the artist elsewhere, Apple has weaker standing in claiming a huge commission. But if they found an artist elsewhere, they would also know that they can support that artist elsewhere and not through the iOS app. If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that…

And if I access Patreon via Chrome on Windows, and use Chrome on Windows to consume the artist's content, clearly I prefer the Chrome and Windows experience, so Microsoft and Google should be getting their 30% cut, right?

... and of course the user found the artist elsewhere than the iOS app store. They found them on youtube, or reddit, or _possibly_ on the webview inside the patreon iOS app, which is also _not_ apple's App Store content, it's content provided by Patreon.

Again, should accessing my bank via the Safari or Chrome iOS app mean apple gets 30% of all my bank transactions, just because they were displayed on a webview inside an iOS app?

Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

#605

Incoming "please pay on webpage, else you have to pay 30% more" banner in the app

This is actually against their App Store rules, and likewise the article has the following bit:

> Patreon gives creators the option to either increase their prices in the iOS app only, [...]

it would totally not fly with Apple. They don't let this 30% commission to be visible by users, just like every other company that does such commissions. You don't see that the creator only gets about half of your donation on YouTube or Twitch, you never see that Visa takes 1% of your payment in a store, etc. Even governments do that. I don't see the value of VAT in the price of goods in stores. The US sales tax is an exception.

A lot of people would complain about how high those fees (or taxes) are if they saw them spelled out for them.

Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

#606
post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This is a result of a market failure caused by monopoly power. Regulators must make sure market capitalism works. I'm not sure what is the basis for your question but using market definition where Google Play and Apple Store are in the same market is not correct (market definition is essential part of any monopoly regulation). Markets are defined by choice of practice, not by choice in principle.

My question is: what is the basis for asserting that this market failure is due to monopoly power? Is your argument that their excessive profits from the services provided result from anti-competitive behavior? If so, what specific anti-competitive behavior are you referring to?

The specific cited anti-competitive behaviors (from DOJ and EU Commission is) are related to violating anti-steering provisions (companies forbidden for directing towards other payments methods), tying and bundling (in-app purchase requirements), self-preferencing (obvious), "tap-to-pay" monopoly, and blocking third party app-stores.

Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

#608
post #327

Apple’s App Store profits on commissions from digital sales Revenue $32 B Operating Costs $7 B [1] Estimated Profit $25 B Operating Margin ~78% [1] R&D, security, hosting, human review, and including building and maintaining developer tools Xcode, APIs, and SDKs. Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits. Fun Fact: During the Epic trial, it was revealed that Apple's profit margins on the App Store were…

Plus more than $20B for the Apple developer fee without which you cannot publish the their stores.

Re: Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

#610
post #412

Earlier 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 subscribe to a half dozen creators and I have exclusively used the web interface to subscribe and consume this content. You cannot tell me with a straight face that if the only difference was I subscribed on my phone to someone who charges me $10/mo, Apple is entitled to $36 for the first year and $18/yr in perpetuity thereafter.
Post reply on HN