841–850 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>would be no fee Because fraud doesn't exist?
Why would Apple charge itself a platform fee? They are the platform. Unless you are talking about CC fees, which are like 2% compared to the 30% that Apple is extorting you for. Can you explain your comment?
What makes you think they wouldn't ask for their cut, if you could publish other content on their marketplaces?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an interesting idea. What if, instead of 'subscribing' for $10, you purchase a grain of sand for $10. The grain of sand is available for collection from somewhere, doesn't matter where because nobody would bother to collect it. Your physical purchase comes with free access to digital content.
This wouldn't work, unless you actually have some legitimate way to obtain the grain of sand. So Patreon would have to actually staff a location somewhere that distributes the sand.
> staff a location
still costs less than 30% of all ios revenue
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t the whole point of the 30% apple tax to make sure their App Store isn’t full of garbage?
Not only but also; as with a real tax from a government, all the money goes into a big pot, gets mixed around, and then the expenses come out unevenly from that pot. I'm not at all aware of where the boundary is between "that's fine" and "that's abuse of market dominance to fund uneconomical expansion". Does anywhere have a specific "national defence" tax and another "police fund" tax etc. for each expense, rather th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always buy on Gog first because they really care about the user. No DRM, the ability to download safe copies in case some lawsuit happens and things get pulled out (e.g. like half the music in GTA San Andreas!). I understand you as a creator prefer steam but I wouldn't obey that, sorry. Also, reinforcing their market position is not in my best interest as a consumer.
I think you may have accidentally misread my post, or maybe I didn't word it carefully enough (in which case I apologize for the confusion). I don't prefer Steam. As a consumer, on principle in most cases I refuse to buy from it. Steam effectively punishes creators for not steering users towards their monopoly, and they have a ton of tools for user lock-in: Steam Input, Steam Workshop, etc... They may not be as egreg…
Steam offers the far superior platform, in every possible aspect. Every thing you've said is them OFFERING (not FORCING) better solutions to things.
For example, in what universe do you think it's sane to think a store front should accept random reviews from random people? Having bought the game is the one of the best metrics to tell if a review is even approaching sincerity.
Not having random reviews in the steam reviews is a feature.
And in the context of Android or iOS, the PC gaming market is SUPER DUPER EXTRA diverse. I own games in like 5 different stores, but always prefer Steam or GOG where possible.
Offering better services and getting more user because of it is not malicious or anti-competitive or monopolistic. It's the best possible outcome (assuming you like capitalism).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your "nobody" is doing all the work. Steam distributes to Windows, but you aren't required to use Steam to distribute to Windows, and then many people don't . Adobe isn't paying Valve to distribute their suite. Epic doesn't use it for Fortnite. Random enterprise software developers have nothing to do with it. It's like pointing to the existence of people who willingly buy a BMW as a justification for forcing everyone…
>It's like pointing to the existence of people who willingly buy a BMW as a justification for forcing everyone to buy a BMW whether they want it or not. products aren't markets. Steam is a market and many games only launch on Steam. That's a sign of a monopoly, be it deserved or not. Still, I'd rather have some aspects investigated because monopolies are historally dangerous.
At least, that's the way I've seen people speak of monopolies exclusively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I agree in principle, the counter-argument to this is that Apple would ultimately be blamed in the minds of consumers for not keeping those devices protected from bad software. They could say I told you so, but that doesn’t help them after the golden goose of the App Store has already been cooked.
>the counter-argument to this is that Apple would ultimately be blamed in the minds of consumers for not keeping those devices protected from bad software. To be brash, maybe consumers need to learn how to protect themselves or move to dumb hardware that is impractical to hack. I don't understand this trend of blaming corporations for not being the de facto gatekeeper of security. They should help minimize spam/malwa…
Most people can't use systems well enough to take charge of their protection. Ideally they wouldn't need to use systems beyond their competence any more than I should have to synthesise my own ibuprofen from scratch (I wouldn't know where to begin), but software ate the world so they can't opt-out either.
Old survey now, but I doubt the results would be significantly different today: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/a-quarter-of-adults-c...
> I don't understand this trend of blaming corporations for not being the de facto gatekeeper of security
Governments, the alternative place to seek security, can't do it. The attacks are global in origin, cross border government cooperation isn't at that level, while all Apple local corporations worldwide are all aligned with the one in California.
This trend was preceded with "install antivirus", which had some overlap with "don't connect to the internet" back when that was practically possible.
> They should help minimize spam/malware, but if you're going out of your way to disable those securities (likened to turning off Windows Defender after 2 warnings), your insecurities are self-inflicted.
Those warnings are themselves seen as Apple trying to prevent people switching to other stores.
> I won't believe a signifigant portion will get through idiot-proof safeguards just because "well they have a chance to now!"
What counts as "significant"?
For example, 1% of a nation having their bank accounts drained would be a huge issue — I think that's about 15 times what ransomware currently costs per year.
I've yet to encounter a system so well designed that it's at the 99% level of "idiot-proot", the closest they get is by being the exact opposite: too hard to use so the idiots hurt themselves some other way first.
Earlier 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? Wondering about that, too - I always use the website on my ipad since a browser allows me to enlarge the font size when reading novels on Patreon (a feature that the app does not offer).
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…
> 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'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh you too. Glad to know I'm not the only one who's really liked per-creation for years. "I pay my rent if I can do eight posts of comics pages/art/etc a month" was a good kick in the ass to keep working. Patreon's been trying to kick everyone off of per-creation for like half the time I've been using it, so I'm sure they're pretty delighted to have this excuse to nuke that mode. I don't think I've seen a single Patr…
OG Patreon is monthly. The whole point is to support creator in tough times, not buy her stuff on discount.
At the same time, people do care about spending an extra $5 on top of $50 they already spend on patronage, so new creators in the same field find it harder to amass a sustainable number of patrons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And since we live in a democracy with laws where Apple's current arrangement can be voted to be made illegal, we can also decide to force Apple to open their device ecosystem (which may already be illegal).
Yeah we could. But just because we do, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing or the smart thing to do. Once upon a time alcohol was voted illegal and even now marijuana is federally illegal. I personally think it’s a shame when the government takes something interesting and working and makes it illegal. Patreon could easily not be an app on iOS, but they really want that money, so now the government has to make laws on a…
Do you also think monopolies should be allowed to operate uninterrupted, then?