6 ms·

Patreon also stands to gain from this change. Come think of it, the new arrangement is a win for everyone involved - except the actual patrons ofcourse.

by balozi 2y ago

voiceblue 2y ago
Is there any evidence that Apple has actually made this "threat"? I'm not seeing anything other than what Patreon has claimed (and it seems that they are only recently going to begin to allow iOS purchases, which might mean they are bringing this upon themselves). I am suspicious, because the specific change to per-creation billing is overwhelmingly positive for Patreon (and, as you pointed out, not for its users), from a business economics perspective (assuming they don't lose too many users over this). It also seems odd for Apple to press that point specifically.
- Kwpolska 2y ago
  Apple has been on a crusade against all payments not going through them for many years. I absolutely believe this is Apple’s fault, although I would have expected this to have happened much sooner.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- egypturnash 2y ago
  I am a creator on the per-creation model and I got a very unambiguously worded email from Patreon this morning basically saying "if we want to be on the iOS store, Apple requires that we remove all billing methods that are not compatible with their payment method, and yours is not; in November 2025, you will be switched to the one billing method that Apple allows us to still have. If you would like to start earlier go to this link and hit this button to start the process." They used more words but they were very clear that this is a thing Apple is imposing on them as the price for being on the iOS App Store.
  - jzl 2y ago
    Right but just because they said it doesn’t mean they’re not playing fast and loose with the messaging. I’ve never heard of a single app where the off-app billing affected the inclusion of the app in the store. I mean maybe it’s true but that seems like it would be breaking new ground in App Store rules. I suspect Patreon is playing semantics here but would be happy to see evidence otherwise. To be clear, I’m taking about the case where Patreon could decide to show no billing details or links at all in the App Store, just like eg Audible. I think the problem is that Patreon still wants to offer billing options in the app.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      > I’ve never heard of a single app where the off-app billing affected the inclusion of the app in the store. most apps don't do payments like this to begin with. >To be clear, I’m taking about the case where Patreon could decide to show no billing details or links at all in the App Store, just like eg Audible. To be frank, I don't think Patreon has the same market force as Audible. Audible can definitely appeal to apple and make a deal that others don't get. Maybe Patreon did desire some of this, but I do put the blame on Apple. This is hardly the first time they arbiriarily played hardball.
      - jzl 2y ago
        Apologies, I somehow missed the memo three years ago that Audible turned on in-app purchases(1). I was thinking of the pre-2021 policy. I’m still pretty sure that if an app has zero financial interactions at all in the App Store that Apple has no limitations on how the app’s financials work outside of the app. But I can understand that once you want to do anything in app, Apple might have restrictions on hybrid models. 1 - https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/16/you-can-now-buy-audiobooks-directly-within-the-audible-app-using-audible-credits https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/16/you-can-now-buy-audiobooks-di...
    - pyrale 2y ago
      > I think the problem is that Patreon still wants to offer billing options in the app. We probably will never know which of Apple or Patreon is guilty, unless Apple is forced to yield it in a future discovery, or is raided by some agency in a probe.
xmprt 2y ago
Not really. There are a lot of creators I watch who only make content once a year. Sometimes they'll have 2 videos a year if they're lucky. With the per creation model, I have no problems supporting them but if it's billed monthly then the price becomes a lot steeper. Alternatively they could reduce the cost to support them but then the fees becomes much higher for both the creator and patreon (29c + 5% IIRC).
- ncr100 2y ago
  Agreed - the market will respond to these higher costs in a predictable manner. A smaller market.
tdb7893 2y ago
Taking away the options is not a win for the creators
Jeff_Brown 2y ago
How can they gain after losing 30% to Apple?
- borski 2y ago
  Relative to not having predictable monthly recurring revenue.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Patreon doesn't lose anything to Apple - they give creators on Patreon a choice - charge Apple users more to cover the 30%, or eat the loss. I don't know what Patreon's take is, they are going to take the same either way. However they know their customers and users will lose from this and it is good for them to look out for their customers (it doesn't costs them much)
  - cyrnel 2y ago
    Customers leave when prices rise above their willingness to pay. Some customers will realize on their own that they can bypass Apple's fee by subscribing through the browser, but most won't (since Apple forbids even mentioning this trick).
    - theturtle32 2y ago
      This, imo is a solid argument for "fine then, we're just gonna pull our app and use mobile web exclusively."
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Only if the users follow. If users decide they won't use the mobile web then patreon and the creators they represent lose. Nobody knows for sure, but there is a general belief that users will not follow (or at least enough won't follow).
        jachee 2y ago
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
Fewer patrons is a likely consequence, which would not be a win.

Patreon also stands to gain from this change. Come think of it, the new arrangement is a win for everyone involved - except the actual patrons ofcourse.

by balozi 2y ago

Patreon also stands to gain from this change. Come think of it, the new arrangement is a win for everyone involved - except the actual patrons ofcourse.

voiceblue 2y ago

Is there any evidence that Apple has actually made this "threat"? I'm not seeing anything other than what Patreon has claimed (and it seems that they are only recently going to begin to allow iOS purchases, which might mean they are bringing this upon themselves). I am suspicious, because the specific change to per-creation billing is overwhelmingly positive for Patreon (and, as you pointed out, not for its users), from a business economics perspective (assuming they don't lose too many users over this). It also seems odd for Apple to press that point specifically.

Kwpolska 2y ago
Apple has been on a crusade against all payments not going through them for many years. I absolutely believe this is Apple’s fault, although I would have expected this to have happened much sooner.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
egypturnash 2y ago
I am a creator on the per-creation model and I got a very unambiguously worded email from Patreon this morning basically saying "if we want to be on the iOS store, Apple requires that we remove all billing methods that are not compatible with their payment method, and yours is not; in November 2025, you will be switched to the one billing method that Apple allows us to still have. If you would like to start earlier go to this link and hit this button to start the process." They used more words but they were very clear that this is a thing Apple is imposing on them as the price for being on the iOS App Store.
- jzl 2y ago
  Right but just because they said it doesn’t mean they’re not playing fast and loose with the messaging. I’ve never heard of a single app where the off-app billing affected the inclusion of the app in the store. I mean maybe it’s true but that seems like it would be breaking new ground in App Store rules. I suspect Patreon is playing semantics here but would be happy to see evidence otherwise. To be clear, I’m taking about the case where Patreon could decide to show no billing details or links at all in the App Store, just like eg Audible. I think the problem is that Patreon still wants to offer billing options in the app.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    > I’ve never heard of a single app where the off-app billing affected the inclusion of the app in the store. most apps don't do payments like this to begin with. >To be clear, I’m taking about the case where Patreon could decide to show no billing details or links at all in the App Store, just like eg Audible. To be frank, I don't think Patreon has the same market force as Audible. Audible can definitely appeal to apple and make a deal that others don't get. Maybe Patreon did desire some of this, but I do put the blame on Apple. This is hardly the first time they arbiriarily played hardball.
    - jzl 2y ago
      Apologies, I somehow missed the memo three years ago that Audible turned on in-app purchases(1). I was thinking of the pre-2021 policy. I’m still pretty sure that if an app has zero financial interactions at all in the App Store that Apple has no limitations on how the app’s financials work outside of the app. But I can understand that once you want to do anything in app, Apple might have restrictions on hybrid models. 1 - https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/16/you-can-now-buy-audiobooks-directly-within-the-audible-app-using-audible-credits https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/16/you-can-now-buy-audiobooks-di...
  - pyrale 2y ago
    > I think the problem is that Patreon still wants to offer billing options in the app. We probably will never know which of Apple or Patreon is guilty, unless Apple is forced to yield it in a future discovery, or is raided by some agency in a probe.

xmprt 2y ago

Not really. There are a lot of creators I watch who only make content once a year. Sometimes they'll have 2 videos a year if they're lucky. With the per creation model, I have no problems supporting them but if it's billed monthly then the price becomes a lot steeper. Alternatively they could reduce the cost to support them but then the fees becomes much higher for both the creator and patreon (29c + 5% IIRC).

ncr100 2y ago
Agreed - the market will respond to these higher costs in a predictable manner. A smaller market.

tdb7893 2y ago

Taking away the options is not a win for the creators

Jeff_Brown 2y ago

How can they gain after losing 30% to Apple?

borski 2y ago
Relative to not having predictable monthly recurring revenue.
bluGill 2y ago
Patreon doesn't lose anything to Apple - they give creators on Patreon a choice - charge Apple users more to cover the 30%, or eat the loss. I don't know what Patreon's take is, they are going to take the same either way. However they know their customers and users will lose from this and it is good for them to look out for their customers (it doesn't costs them much)
- cyrnel 2y ago
  Customers leave when prices rise above their willingness to pay. Some customers will realize on their own that they can bypass Apple's fee by subscribing through the browser, but most won't (since Apple forbids even mentioning this trick).
  - theturtle32 2y ago
    This, imo is a solid argument for "fine then, we're just gonna pull our app and use mobile web exclusively."
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Only if the users follow. If users decide they won't use the mobile web then patreon and the creators they represent lose. Nobody knows for sure, but there is a general belief that users will not follow (or at least enough won't follow).
      - jachee 2y ago

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

Fewer patrons is a likely consequence, which would not be a win.