Apple Threatens To Remove Patreon From App Store Over Billing Dispute (techcrunch.com) 83
Apple has threatened to remove crowdfunding app Patreon from the App Store if creators continue to use unsupported third-party billing options or disable transactions on iOS, instead of using Apple's own in-app purchasing system. From a report: In a blog post and email to Patreon creators about upcoming changes to membership in the iOS app, the company says it's begun a 16-month-long migration process to move all creators to Apple's subscription billing by November 2025. Patreon also informed creators it will switch them over to subscription billing as of November 2024, but they will be able to decide whether to price their memberships at a higher fee to cover Apple's commission or decide if they want to absorb the fee themselves. In addition, creators can opt to delay the migration in their Patreon settings to November 2025, the company said. However, if creators choose the latter option, they won't be able to offer memberships in the iOS app until they adopt Apple's subscription billing, as Apple rules will apply as of this November.
Antitrust action? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe they've gotten away with this crap to this point. The business is mature and putting up with this oligopoly behavior seems not in the public interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Antitrust action? (Score:4, Insightful)
I sympathize, but this is like complaining of prices in Starbucks, inside Starbucks, when there's Tim Horoton's, Dunkin' Donuts, and a dozen mom and popp shoppes right down the street.
When asked why they charged so much, Starbucks said, "Because our customers prefer the premium experience."
Android calls to you.
Re: Antitrust action? (Score:2)
Trying to reduce antitrust to monopoly law accomplishes only one thing, proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you don't understand antitrust law.
Keep it up! It's hilarious.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't compare coffee shops and phone OSes because you can narrow down many options to find the one you want. With phones, you have to think of the feature you want most, and go with that. There are no other options.
Re: Antitrust action? (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s frustrating, mate: some people here really do love their monopolies. (Or monopolistic behaviour.)
Personally, I think Apple is indeed behaving like a monopolist, and Iâ(TM)m rooting for the EU big time.
My hope is that the model thatâ(TM)s gradually taking form in the EU becomes something other countries can copy-paste, so as to fast-track its spread.
Furthermore, Appleâ(TM)s âoemalicious complianceâ with legislation does not endear them to me in the slightest.
And I say a
Re: Antitrust action? (Score:2)
Not so clear cut (Score:1, Troll)
Apple claims that walling off the garden allows better security by locking out riff-raff and poorly-vetted stuff. It's an interesting argument because there is a degree of truth. If a user wants the wild west with lots of choice but lots of pitfalls, they can go Android.
Re: Not so clear cut (Score:5, Insightful)
There is one degree of truth out of a complete circle of bullshit.
The true part is that sideloading is dangerous.
The bullshit part is idea that having the option is dangerous to people who aren't using it.
Re: Not so clear cut (Score:2)
It is dangerous to people who can be talked into using it and donâ(TM)t really understand it. Concrete example: I do not want my parents or my in-laws to have the option for such sideloading because thereâ(TM)s too much history of my elders being talked into crap by malicious spammers. I can generally trust that Apple devices keep that stuff minimal (not zero but way less than when my elders had Android phones). Even me, who works in tech and security, gets lazy or tricked by a link from time to
Re: Not so clear cut (Score:3)
The obvious solution to that problem is to have administrative and other accounts and allow the admin account to lock out sideloading. That way if you have children, or relatives who have regressed to childhood levels of responsibility due to age, you can support them capably.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution to that problem is to have administrative and other accounts and allow the admin account to lock out sideloading.
This doesn't work for your Parents and In-Laws, because they have the legal right to Administrative access over their phone, so long as it's their property. You can already set a restrictions Passcode on a phone and Apply limits and parental controls against various features, But the owner of that phone or Apple account the phone's associated with that has their personal
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't work for your Parents and In-Laws, because they have the legal right to Administrative access over their phone, so long as it's their property.
They can give up that right if they choose.
But the owner of that phone or Apple account the phone's associated with that has their personal info and credit cards attached to it has the legal right and ability to reset any of their devices and clear those restrictions.
So tell them not to if they want you to support them.
Re: Not so clear cut (Score:2)
I cannot put admin controls on the phones of supposedly responsible adults. I can encourage them to buy a particular brand for lots of other reasons and be happy it comes with certain limitations they will never know exist.
Re: Not so clear cut (Score:3)
I don't want to change your experience at all.
I don't want your incompetence to inconvenience me when I'm forced to use an apple product for some work reason.
It's your experience that's affecting mine, not the other way around.
Re: Not so clear cut (Score:2)
But you opening up holes to make things possible DOES affect my experience. The fact that some things are impossible regardless of settings is something I and many other people rely upon ⦠and even pay a premium to get.
Why are you forced to use an Apple product? That does not make sense as a use case to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you forced to use an Apple product? That does not make sense as a use case to me.
One possibility: Workers typically don't get a choice in the device their company hands out.
Re: Not so clear cut (Score:2)
Why are you forced to use an Apple product? That does not make sense as a use case to me.
The answer to that question is the same as the answer to "why are you forced to use side loading?", you can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
A work device would definitely be a device where sideloading would be banned. Even if it were an option, I guarantee the corporate IT would lock that out.
Re: (Score:1)
my elders being talked into crap by malicious spammers
you keep saying this as if sideloading changes the sentence at all
it would go from "already happening just fine From My iPhone" to "still happening From My iPhone"
hell, iTunes gift cards are the venue of choice
but sure cling to the illusion so you have an excuse to pay for the teat
Re: (Score:3)
It is dangerous to people who can be talked into using it and donâ(TM)t really understand it.
By that logic fire and everything that came after it should be banned because we have the greatest idiots of our time.
Better idea: Let's physically take the technology they can't understand away from them. As in, you cannot be bothered to learn, or are "incapable" of understanding the basics of what your devices offer you, you don't get device privileges. Why? Because it's a privilege, and even if it was a right, both come with responsibilities that they've either refused to take on or are incapable of t
Re: (Score:2)
You are twisting my position. Android exists: if you can handle the power, go handle the power. I do not think that it should be off limits. But I do think that there is a place for a product where certain capacities are off limits. Clearly the rest of the marketplace agrees with me. I would NEVER support a mandate that says all phones must be sealed up for the consumer's good. But having some phones that are sealed up is a useful thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not want my parents or my in-laws to have the option for such sideloading because thereâ(TM)s too much history of my elders being talked into crap by malicious spammers.
I'm pretty sure a password could be used to lock-out a device from allowing side-loading. Good for devices given to kids or the elderly.
Hmm... nah, that gives the owner too much control over the device. It's just easier to ban side-loading entirely and shriek, "SECURITY! LOL!"
Re: Not so clear cut (Score:2)
I do not have any ability to put a password on their device.
Re:Not so clear cut (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is perfectly capable of being a gatekeeper of every app that is installed on an Apple device while still allowing those apps to use an optional third-party service for financial transactions. It wasn't that long ago that even requiring third-party app services to provide the option for users to pay through the first-party's financial services would have been heavily scrutinized. However, for years Apple has been getting away with not even allowing payments via any third-party services. In other words, vetting all third-party apps for security concerns doesn't inherently require all financial transactions to be performed through Apple's services. Apple likes conflating those independent services because it makes them an incomprehensible amount of money.
Wow, I am conflicted. (Score:3, Funny)
"All your app are belong to us!"
-or-
"One payment system to rule them all, One system to find them . . . "
-or-
"In Soviet Russia, App uses you!"
-or-
" . . . write your own joke"
Re: (Score:2)
" . . . write your own joke"
You want me to be creative!? Inconceivable!
Re: (Score:2)
I was born without a humor gland you insensitive clod!
This is the kind of bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't believe Apple can prey on services like Patreon and steal donations to creators just because its impossible to install an app any other way. People need to boycott this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't believe Apple can prey on services like Patreon and steal donations to creators just because its impossible to install an app any other way.
Why can't you believe it? This is what you voted for: Unrestrained Capitalism. All of us voted for it. We get what we deserve. (either that or the elections aren't actually legitimate, take your pick)
Why do they need an app again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly iOS has a web browser, correct?
Why does everyone need an app when a web site is perfectly fine?
I haven't installed a new app on my phone in years. If there are one-off things I do, I just go to the web site and, if the site is designed well, it looks and operates just as well.
Re:Why do they need an app again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does everyone need an app when a web site is perfectly fine?
Because an app lets them track and monitize you far more easily than web cookies, and survives across device replacement.
Re:Why do they need an app again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does everyone need an app when a web site is perfectly fine?
Because an app lets them track and monitize you far more easily than web cookies, and survives across device replacement.
That's why the corporations need/want everyone to have their (cr)app, but there is no real need for the consumer to have a specialized app for each and every thing they use. The only specialized apps I have are for my bank, Walmart, Brookshire's and Amazon, and the Amazon app isn't really needed. All others can kiss my ass, if they don't allow me to easily access their website on my phone, then they don't get my business.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it need to be an either/or situation? (force everyone through the app store, or remove the app and force everyone through the webpage)
I 100% get the desire to pay via an established route, like managing ones patreon donations via the app and paying via the app store in iPhone. And, if paying through the app store, I also understand the need for some cut/fee to go to Apple.
Patreon is also supported on Android and the web already. Payments made there don't get dinged with a fee going to Apple.
Currently,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple restricts the features available in Safari (and doesn't allow 3rd party engines) so the developers find that they are forced to create native apps for iOS. This way Apple can control payments and do this stuff to keep controlling everything.
Re: (Score:2)
What features could Patreon possibly need that wouldn't be in any web browser?
The only features Apple limits are things like file downloads. As far as Patreon needs, the web browser is more than good enough. Things like notifications are already supported e
Re: (Score:2)
Because like it or not, the general public at large vastly prefers native mobile apps to using a website in a browser.
Re: (Score:2)
You can really think of most mobile apps as really just being bookmarks with a persistent data cache. This gives a better user experience than having to wait for every asset to download each time you visit the site.
Yes, the same thing could be accomplished in Safari if it was designed to be less aggressive about cache housekeeping, but good luck getting Apple to go along with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does everyone need an app when a web site is perfectly fine?
Companies with apps have an advantage over companies without, because 1) Apps can be better behaved and generally offer a better experience than websites and 2) average customers have come to expect apps.
Remember when iOS wasn't going to have third party apps, only websites? That was the ultimate in anticompetition since Apple was still allowed to make actual apps. But it was also stupid, and Apple changed course without having to be forced because it was so stupid.
Easy (Score:2)
step 1. buy Android burner phone
step 2. use app on this platform
step 2. profit!
Re: (Score:1)
Way ahead of you, bro.
I have never owned an iPhone.
Nobody has ever owned an iPhone (Score:1)
In Soviet Russia* iPhone owns YOU!
*offer also available in the USA and anywhere else iPhones available! Order today to be ordered around tomorrow!
Re: (Score:2)
step 1. get every one of my patrons who uses an iOS device to buy an Android burner phone
step 2. get every one of my patrons who uses an iOS device to use app on this platform
step 2. profit!
Re: Easy (Score:2)
Apple's policies absolutely do hurt their users. They result in them having to pay apple a cut for things they buy from other vendors. That's not only directly harmful to them, but it directly benefits apple in the process. It literally couldn't be a more obvious example of antitrust violation.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm donating (Score:2, Insightful)
antitrust (Score:1)
If apple is insisting that payment must be made through them for something that might not involve them at all, this becomes an antitrust issue does it not?
Re: antitrust (Score:2)
Maybe but not necessarily. Security of the platform is a legit reason to be involved. Whether this is really about security of the platform would need to be evaluated in court.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if the creators disable transactions? (Score:1)
I read the original Patreon post, but I want to make sure I am understanding it right. As a creator (which I am not), if I make it impossible for my customers to buy from the app, and instead direct them to the website, that can get the whole Patreon app in trouble, too?
I thought Amazon and others do exactly the same. For example, you cannot buy books from the Kindle app directly. So why would Apple threaten Patreon for the same?
Re: Even if the creators disable transactions? (Score:2)
Amazon does not include a link to specific products on Amazon.com in the Kindle app â" I do not see even a URL for Amazon itself. They assume users will figure out how to get to Amazon. Individual Patreon users are a different case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Even if the creators disable transactions? (Score:2)
It's the directing to website thing where I think you're getting tripped up.
"Go to the Amazon website to purchase" doesn't count.
"Click here to pay on Amazon" does count.
Amazon does the first. Patreon presumably wants to do the latter.
Just use the Patreon WEB interface already (Score:2)
If you use a credit card with Patreon, the credit card company takes a cut.
If you use Patreon at all, Patreon takes a cut.
If you use Apple's in-app purchases to fund Patreon, Apple takes a cut.
SO DON'T USE APPLE'S In-App Purchases to fund Patreon. Was that difficult?
Use the F-ing Patreon web page. Here you go: https://www.patreon.com./ [www.patreon.com] Now you are only paying the credit card company's fee and Patreon's fee.
Bitching about Apple's services taking a cut is like bitching that the post office requires stamps on
Evil all (Score:2)
Patreon has deplatformed creators due to their political views. Unfortunately this is one of the few ways creators can actually make money on YouTube. This action by evil Apple against evil Patreon screwing its creators who publish on evil YouTube is just another death knell for the independent internet, which is simply now turning into cable television.
Re: (Score:2)
Patreon isn't even the best way to make money as a content creator. Especially as a YouTube creator.
Re: (Score:2)
What are better ways?
YT or other platforms?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how you want your content distributed and the type. Ko-fi is better overall for handling memberships and payments. YouTube is still the go to for video content, because it already has the better reach - at least for the free videos needed to convince people you're worth paying.
Who pays for the app store? (Score:2, Funny)
Apple wants a monopoly on payments. (Score:2)
Just because it had to be installed on your 'store' doesn't mean you can just take 30 percent of all third party transactions.
This is like Home Depot selling a toilet and requiring everyone to only use the company's sewer lines (for a cost).
Don't get the outrage at Apple (Score:2)
Sure, Apple takes a cut if you subscribe through them. The ass in the equation is Patreon's desire to automatically move users that have the Apple app to the Apple subscription service. There is no good reason for the app in the first place, but if Patreon wants it then they should be moving new users to Apple and not existing users.
Re:Don't get the outrage at Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't matter. Their options are bow to Apple and keep their app, or fight against Apple and lose the app. Do they need the app to accomplish their main feature? No. Is the app better than the web browser? Yes.
Apple is being anti-competitive and anti-consumer, as always.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is being anti-competitive and anti-consumer, as always.
That is one way to look at it; however, I am fairly certain that Apple isn't looking at it that way. They care about profits, consumers are an afterthought. They are merely securing their profits before someone else takes those profits. Blame the game, not the player.
The age of ecosystem (Score:2)
Having a centralized view and management of subscriptions is very convenient and an ecosystem using its monopoly power to force third parties to provide you that is surely convenient.
This is the age of ecosystem and there are only one and a half ecosystems unfortunately. Apple will rule all.
Why does Patreon even have an app? (Score:2)
It seems unnecessary to me.
60% - 62% after all the fees (Score:2)
For The 4,000th Time (Score:1, Interesting)
Fuck Apple. If you use a product from them, you deserve to get fucked over because obviously you are stupid and gullible.
1984-2024 (Score:2)
And the butt hurt Apple haters continue. It has to be the most pathetic sub-group of "techies" since the first IBM PC shipped. THERE IS NO STORY HERE. This is the equivalent of not being able to set up your own candy stand in a movie theater. How DARE they ban you. They have a MONOPOLY on the people going to see that movie! GIVE IT UP ALREADY. Apple is not a monopoly. Microsoft with 90% of computer sales in 1990 WAS A MONOPOLY. Apple CAN decide how to run their store. No story here.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is the equivalent of not being able to set up your own candy stand in a movie theater."
Wait? Is the the movie theatre in this example the iphone?
Because i own the movie theatre, if i want to put a candy stand in it, then I should be allowed to, right?? How exactly are you justifying that I can't put a candy store in the movie theatre I FUCKING OWN???
Or is the "apple store" the "movie theatre"? Because sure in that case I could see your point - While I own the iphone, I don
t own the apple store. And if
Re: (Score:2)
Apple owns the land that the movie theater operates on, but that movie theater should still be allowed to accept payment in whatever method they choose. Whether that be the land owner's payment method (+30%) or any other competing payment method should be at the movie theater's choice without the landlord touching any of that money. Free market works for a reason. Apple is circumventing it by being an abusive landlord.
Let me get this straight (Score:2)
next up: paypal! (Score:2)
What is the difference between sneding money via paypal and sending money via patreon?
So will Apple try to get 30% of all transactions done with paypal app?