Apple Requiring Patreon to Use In-App Purchase and Pay 30% Fee for Memberships

[Casshan]

I love Apple, but their intractable belief that they deserve a cut of anything happening on their platform makes them look like a mob boss, is destroying their reputation, and make their products worse.

They made a popular platform, and should be compensated for it, but this is not the way. Just because they didn’t have the foresight to see free apps would make up the bulk of the App Store doesn’t mean you can just say “fine, give me a cut of everything you do”.

 

[BaldiMac]

They would have to leave the App Store though,

Why would they need to be in the App Store to sell through the web?!?

since Apple apparently threatened to kick them out if they disabled payments inside the Patreon app. It's mentioned in the article.

That's not what the article said. The problem was they were using alternative payments inside the app.They could certainly remove all payment options from inside the Patreon app and present it as a reader app.

 

[hans1972]

The difference is, if a creator is not happy with Patreon, they can use a different service, because there is competition in the space. Patreon supporters, who are usually very dedicated fans, will most likely follow the creator to another platform.

There is no way around the Apple tax.

Of course there is: Web browser on any platform, Android, Windows application, macOS application, Linux application, checks, bank transfer, crypto currency transaction.

Lot's of way to get money from users.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Ahh, yes. Because large companies normally don't charge people anything if they make less than a million a year.

The way they've gone about it is foul and seems to involve the anti steering behaviour that found them in violation of the Digital Markets Act in the EU

They would have to leave the App Store though, since Apple apparently threatened to kick them out if they disabled payments inside the Patreon app. It's mentioned in the article.

That won't fly in the EU. Anti Steering.

 

[hans1972]

Why should they have to change their business model just because Apple decides that they deserve 30% of any payments?

Because their current model isn't successful with Apple's commission?

 

[hans1972]

They would have to leave the App Store though, since Apple apparently threatened to kick them out if they disabled payments inside the Patreon app. It's mentioned in the article.

They can still do web. No app needed. Why are there even on iOS?

 

[Manzanito]

If there’s something Cook is good at, it must be finding ways to pocket other people’s money.

 

[zchrykng]

Because their current model isn't successful with Apple's commission?

Or they can turn off iOS in-app purchases and wait for regulators to finally do their job and crush Apple's monopolist behaviour.

 

[Passthru]

I've generally been on Apple's side through all this stuff with the EU because given how much it has the potential to spy on you, I want my phone to be a locked-down appliance. But this is too much. In many cases supporters don't get anything for a donation - just the satisfaction of helping someone create something they like. And Apple wants 30% of that?!? I hope this gets shot down by the higher-ups, because if not, this just convinced me Apple needs to be regulated.

 

[MilaM]

Why would they need to be in the App Store to sell through the web?!?

The app is very likely an important channel for communication with supporters.

That's not what the article said. The problem was they were using alternative payments inside the app.They could certainly remove all payment options from inside the Patreon app and present it as a reader app.

The linked article by Patreon is quite clear in my opinion:

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.

 

[hans1972]

Or they can turn off iOS in-app purchases and wait for regulators to finally do their job and crush Apple's monopolist behaviour.

Yes, they should do that if they value money more than user convenience.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Yes, they should do that if they value money more than user convenience.

I think giving creators a toggle on the Patreon end would be a good compromise. That way, creators can decide if they even want to offer subscriptions to people using the iOS app or direct them to the website.

 

[BaldiMac]

The way they've gone about it is foul and seems to involve the anti steering behaviour that found them in violation of the Digital Markets Act in the EU

I agree. I support anti-steering regulation. But that's not what I was talking about.

The app is very likely an important channel for communication with supporters.

And if iOS is an important platform that Patreon derives value from, I don't see why they shouldn't pay for it. Just like they expect the people who derive value from their platform to pay them.

The linked article by Patreon is quite clear in my opinion:

You're absolutely correct. Sorry about that. I didn't read far enough.

 

[thebart]

Like 95% of people on patreon are barely scraping by or it's a side gig they do for love and the money lets them justify spending time on it. You're going to take your pound of flesh? Eff you apple

Every day they come up with a new way to make me not like giving them money

 

[zchrykng]

Yes, they should do that if they value money more than user convenience.

If people are willing to pay an extra 42.86% just to give Apple their cut/convenience, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

And to give Apple 30% they do have to increase the cost by about 42.9% for Patreon and the creator to receive the same amount of money.

Starting price = 10
New cost = 14.29
Apple's cut 14.29 * 0.3 = 4.29
Remainder = 14.29 - 4.29 = 10

 

[MilaM]

I hope this gets shot down by the higher-ups, because if not, this just convinced me Apple needs to be regulated.

Some commentators have suggested, that Apple is deliberately plugging loopholes to improve their standing in the coming anti-trust court case. If this is true, then I don't think that this decision will be reversed.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I agree. I support anti-steering regulation. But that's not what I was talking about.

No you were comparing the fee creators choose to pay to Patreon to Apple inserting themselves into the middle of that relationship at a much higher average take rate.

And if iOS is an important platform that Patreon derives value from, I don't see why they shouldn't pay for it. Just like they expect the people who derive value from their platform to pay them.

At 15 or 30% which is as much as four times what the average creator pays to Patreon? Nah.

 

[thebart]

This reminds me. Last month I found out my sister had been paying $18 a month for YouTube premium when the regular price is $14 because she subbed through her iPhone app. Of course Google isn't allowed to tell her hey go through the website it'll be cheaper. Ouch. NEVER NEVER subscribe to anything through an app

 

[GizmoDVD]

Or they can turn off iOS in-app purchases and wait for regulators to finally do their job and crush Apple's monopolist behaviour.

Personally I'm gonna head into Target, put up a few desks and start selling my stuff. No problem, right?

 

[MysteriousStain]

Apple profiting off pornography. Didn’t they ban Tumblr for porn?

 

[zchrykng]

Personally I'm gonna head into Target, put up a few desks and start selling my stuff. No problem, right?

Last time I checked, no one is forced to shop at Target. If you have an iPhone, you can't get away from Apple's in-app purchase rules. Physical store analogies have next to zero relevance to this discussion.

 

[BaldiMac]

No you were comparing the fee creators choose to pay to Patreon to Apple inserting themselves into the middle of that relationship at a much higher average take rate.

Nope. Again, I'm talking about using App Store apps as an alternative to Patreon for distribution of digital content. Not about how much Apple charges Patreon. And Apple isn't "inserting themselves" any more than Patreon is.

At 15 or 30% which is as much as five times what the average creator pays to Patreon? Nah.

As I pointed out, for creators that make less than $1 million, Apple would charge 15% for digital content while Patreon charges up to 27%.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

As I pointed out, for creators that make less than $1 million, Apple would charge 15% for digital content while Patreon charges up to 27%.

And it was pointed out that you are cherry picking extreme examples. The numbers you have quoted are nowhere near average.

Average cut for Patreon creators is 8%

 

[GizmoDVD]

Last time I checked, no one is forced to shop at Target. If you have an iPhone, you can't get away from Apple's in-app purchase rules. Physical store analogies have next to zero relevance to this discussion.

You can subscribe to Patreon folks through a whole ton of options, including the safari browser right on the iPhone!

Why does Apple need to provide this service for free?

 

[ifxf]

The app adds no functionality, just use a web browser.