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

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

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 944 posts

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

#851

Post by BiteCode_dev »

mircerlancerous wrote: post #678
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Service workers solve the cache issue; web apps can run permanently offline after initial load. You may be a bit out of date on the state of the web.

No, I use them but loading and unloading the app in the tab still happens when the browser flushes the app from memory because the OS killed it or the browser eviction policy hits.

This loading is not nearly as seamless as a regular app starting back up.

For a regular app, you have the app loading, and the os cache helping with it. If you do your job half correctly, it loads as a block almost instantly.

For a web app you have the web browser loading, the the display of the white viewport in a flash, then the app loading in the browser (with zero os cache to help with so it's slower). It needs then to render. Then restoring the scroll (which is a mess with a browser) and the state as much as you can but you are limited with persistence size so most content must be reloaded which means the layout is moving around. Not to mention JS in a browser is not nearly as performant as a regular app, so as your app grows, it gets worse.

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

#852

Post by akerl_ »

rob74 wrote: post #412
nabla9 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The operating cost is the maximum Apple can come up with when their accountants attribute everything they possibly can to digital sales for the sake of legal argument. R&D shouldn't really be included, and Apple uses those same tools and APIs themselves. I think the actual profit margin is closer to 90%, and Apple could maintain a 20% margin with just a 3–4% fee.

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…

Why are you ok with Patreon taking a cut but not Apple?

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

#853

Post by CGMthrowaway »

devmor wrote: post #836
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The App Store backed purchase for the Patreon subscription would not exist at all without the creator's work and investment in creating their form of content. Both parties are getting the chance to set whatever price they want. Up to the market to resolve supply/demand equilibrium

Creators on Patreon are already loosely bound to the market of other creators. Not all creators are affected by this change. The app store payment cut harms only creators who have disproportionately high percentages of patrons that primarily consume their content from iPhones - a demographic that they have no control over. If they wish to increase their price to make up for this, they then are forced to risk turning…

> The app store payment cut harms only creators who have disproportionately high percentages of patrons that primarily consume their content from iPhones

It cuts both ways. The app store payment disincents consuming content from iPhones (indirectly, as the iPhone-heavy creators raise their prices). Of course Apple has the greater power, but there are always tradeoffs. That is the market in action - "cutting both ways" so to speak - or "strongarm" in your parlance - until you reach equilibrium. An equilibrium which is always temporary (ever heard of disruption?).

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

#854

Post by siavosh »

jacquesm wrote: post #848
siavosh wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the board would replace them. It’s their fiduciary duty.

This nonsense has been parroted so often by now there should be a name for it. And I'll be happy to prove you wrong: there are many things that Apple could do but hasn't done yet that would make them money and yet nobody is suing them for that. For instance they could make the cut 35% or 50% and if they don't then shareholders would sue. But they won't.

I’m not sure we’re actually disagreeing. Boards are expected to maximize long-term shareholder value, not mechanically maximize short-term revenue at every opportunity. Sometimes that means pushing harder on extraction; other times it means holding back because of regulatory risk, developer backlash, or brand damage.

The claim isn’t that Apple must raise fees to 35% or be sued—clearly that’s not how fiduciary duty works. The claim is that, over time, dominant platforms tend to increase extraction once they’ve locked in users and developers. That pattern has been observed repeatedly, and it’s what people are pointing to when they talk about “enshittification.” Individual fee levels can vary, but the long-term direction for monopoly or duopoly platforms is fairly consistent.

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

#855

Post by chongli »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #366
chongli wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you have to do merch fulfillment on a daily basis? Just inform people before signup that you only send out membership cards on the first of the month and if they sign up at any other time they'll have to wait until the first of the next month to get their card sent in the mail. Alternatively, they could show up at the nightclub in person and bring their phone with proof of purchase and the bouncer could hand t…

> Why do you have to do merch fulfillment on a daily basis? Because the "daily" billing model is prorated IIUC. Seems a bit unfair not to be given access to something you've paid for. > bring their phone with proof of purchase One does wonder.

Because the "daily" billing model is prorated IIUC. Seems a bit unfair not to be given access to something you've paid for.

It’s a physical club. You can’t get access to the building without physically going there. If someone buys a membership on a Monday but doesn’t show up until Friday, that’s on them!

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

#856

Post by bigyabai »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #814
bigyabai wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think they'd be that stupid. We're talking about the company that abandoned CUDA, OpenCL and Vulkan mere moments before they were killer technologies. If Apple wanted to phase-out Homebrew, I genuinely think most of the community would nod in unison and switch to developing in UTM. Mac owners are nothing if not flexible.

Yeah no, as a Mac and Linux user, I would seize buying Mac hardware and buy exclusively Linux if they took down Homebrew from being usable. At that point a Mac is no longer a Unix system.

The Mac is barely a UNIX system to begin with. It doesn't ship with UNIX compliance out-of-the-box, and nobody complains. You're likely the minority here.

If Apple locked Homebrew behind SIP or some other inconvenience, it would just result in more virtualization. The default Mac environment hasn't followed industry standards for more than a decade, most professionals are doing their work in a VM already. Truth be told, even Apple wants you to stop compiling software locally in the long-run: https://developer.apple.com/xcode-cloud/

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

#858

Post by hermanzegerman »

peaseagee wrote: post #721
xnyan wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you are correct, but I could be wrong. For example, can you replicate the functionality of TikTok - autoplay unmuted videos as the user scroll down to new videos? It’s the experience that the user expects.

I use FB via my web browser (Firefox on Android) and when I look at Shorts, it has this exact functionality. Web browsers on mobile can do this, clearly.

The Android Browser isn't as crippled as the iOS one. Watch a full screen video on Safari and tap a few times on different places on the screen and you will get a notification about "Typing is not allowed in Full-Screen" or some other nonsense

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

#859

Post by hermanzegerman »

rkagerer wrote: post #702
silvestrov wrote: post #527

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.

Next up, Apple starts taking a cut of every money transfer you do with your banking app.

They do with Apple Pay, and don't allow Banks to roll with their own system like on Android

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

#860

Post by hermanzegerman »

jorvi wrote: post #624
wlesieutre wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I wouldn't be that shocked if Apple tried demanding a 30% royalty on bank deposits and bills paid using iPhone apps. They've decided the future of their company depends on being huge assholes about it.

Something interesting is that Apple and Google Pay charge a tiny commission (don't have the number at hand). Which banks didn't like, so at least on Android they created their own NFC payment stacks for a while. Only to then discover that maintaining such a stack cost them more per year than the commission.

My German Bank still maintains their own pay stack. It's also nice that I don't have to share my payment information or commission with another parasite
Post reply on HN