(This is all from a U.S.-based perspective; I know there are other places like the EU where it’s slightly less terrible) Honestly, it’s not surprising that Apple is trying again. I understand why...
(This is all from a U.S.-based perspective; I know there are other places like the EU where it’s slightly less terrible)
Honestly, it’s not surprising that Apple is trying again. I understand why Apple feels they are entitled to 30% of anyone who touches an iPhone’s money (they’re wrong and they aren’t), but they are just burning so much good will in their quest to increase that all important services revenue.
I know regular, non-tech people who complain that things are more expensive on the App Store. And quite a few who go out of their way to subscribe directly on the web or to a creator so they can make sure more of the money actually goes to the people doing the things they want to support and not a trillion dollar corporation.
I guess a few extra billion is worth pissing your customers off. Where else are they gonna go? Android, which has the same problem?
I'm not sure if it really pisses customers off, though. I mean, I agree that Apple is being gross and monopolistic. But I actually love paying for things through Apple because they put all my...
pissing your customers off.
I'm not sure if it really pisses customers off, though. I mean, I agree that Apple is being gross and monopolistic. But I actually love paying for things through Apple because they put all my subscriptions in one place and remind me before they renew so I remember to cancel the ones I don't want any more (especially since companies push you toward annual subscriptions these days). I can also cancel anything from one screen without navigating a labyrinth for each individual service I want to cancel.
If the government regulated these things more tightly and required companies to make it easy to cancel, and alert you before renewal, then Apple would have less power because we wouldn't "need" a monopolist to act as the regulator.
Under federal law, the FTC must issue a preliminary regulatory analysis when a proposed rule would have an annual effect on the national economy surpassing $100 million.
The FTC said that the rule would not have an annual $100 million impact on the economy.
However, an Administrative Law Judge found that the proposed rule would have an annual effect surpassing the $100 million threshold.
So, yeah. That pretty much says it all. Can't let comsumer rights affect the GDP.
But in a shocking twist, Congress picked this back up this week:
But this Congress isn't exactly one I'd place my hopes on. Love to be proven wrong.
My main point is that this issue is like 2025 as a whole: a roller coaster of emotions where you can see good people trying and not so good people throwing a lot of money as obstruction.
Also, that Apple is on the not so good camp and would push this regardless of the law. So I wouldn't take rhese features as pro consumer ones.
Oh I agree that Apple is certainly not "pro consumer". They're pro getting more money, or maybe even just increasing their share price, and nothing else. Their business model (at least currently)...
Oh I agree that Apple is certainly not "pro consumer". They're pro getting more money, or maybe even just increasing their share price, and nothing else. Their business model (at least currently) just tends to line up a bit better with what is good for their users than many companies, probably because they aren't so dependent on advertising.
Quite a lot of the non-techy people I know explicitly search outside the App Store before buying subscriptions because they know it’s usually more expensive to subscribe in app. And they all know...
Quite a lot of the non-techy people I know explicitly search outside the App Store before buying subscriptions because they know it’s usually more expensive to subscribe in app. And they all know it’s because Apple wants to take a cut.
The limited choices of the consumer are definitely a problem. Fortunately, there are sometimes alternatives within the Android ecosystem, Google Play (as big a chunk as that is) isn't the entirety...
Where else are they gonna go? Android, which has the same problem?
The limited choices of the consumer are definitely a problem. Fortunately, there are sometimes alternatives within the Android ecosystem, Google Play (as big a chunk as that is) isn't the entirety of the app ecosystem so we can leverage that to our advantage.
For instance, since Google and its Play store had the in-app dispute with Epic, Amazon made it so that you can't buy kindle content through the Kindle app from Google Play as a means of cutting Google out of the revenue. But you can download the Kindle app via the Samsung (Galaxy) store and still make in-app purchases with the Kindle for Samsung app. Audible for Samsung is the same way. I would imagine that whatever store LG has probably has something similar, though I'm not familiar with their section of the Android ecosystem.
If people would look for these alternatives and popularize them, it would let people help themselves somewhat and hopefully segment the ecosystem in a way where there's more competition. Patreon should also put a version of the app out on the alternative Android stores as well.
You can make in-app Kindle purchase via the regular Play Store app again. Have been for over a year now, just FYI Edit: Double checked, same with Audible.
You can make in-app Kindle purchase via the regular Play Store app again. Have been for over a year now, just FYI
Just gotta keep fueling those future antitrust lawsuits, huh? Was it really not enough to take a cut of Patreon's 5-10% cut (I. E. The actual app hosted on Apple servers), that you need to reach...
Just gotta keep fueling those future antitrust lawsuits, huh? Was it really not enough to take a cut of Patreon's 5-10% cut (I. E. The actual app hosted on Apple servers), that you need to reach their creators too (who are not IOS devs nor have any contracts with Apple)?
I find it especially cowardly since this is hiding what they really want: their compromise of a 30% tax on their own IOS customers who simply want to support people they like and believe in. This is like having a friend over for a night and your landlord charges them for rent too. Literal rent-seeking
I have no experience with Patreon, nor do I have an Apple phone. If I'm interpreting this right, they expect a cut of ALL payments made on the official iOS Patreon app, regardless of whether the...
I have no experience with Patreon, nor do I have an Apple phone. If I'm interpreting this right, they expect a cut of ALL payments made on the official iOS Patreon app, regardless of whether the creators are doing anything related to iOS? They expect the fee JUST because the app is on their device?
My first thought is "Would Apple expect a cut from people buying things on an Amazon app?"
My second thought: would it be viable for Patreon to just shut down the iOS app entirely? Not sure what features might make the app more preferable over the website. Could they make some special mobile site that basically has the same interface? Or have it so that billing and payments are handled exclusively on the website instead of the iOS app?
I know web and app design are different, but that might be a better option in the long run than having to deal with Apple's BS if they've changed the policy three times in 18 months.
No, there is a carveout for payment for physical goods. Although for Kindle, yes, Apple would expect a cut. Only Patreon would have the numbers for that, but since they're complying, probably not....
My first thought is "Would Apple expect a cut from people buying things on an Amazon app?"
No, there is a carveout for payment for physical goods. Although for Kindle, yes, Apple would expect a cut.
would it be viable for Patreon to just shut down the iOS app entirely?
Only Patreon would have the numbers for that, but since they're complying, probably not.
Or have it so that billing and payments are handled exclusively on the website instead of the iOS app?
This is possible. This is called a "reader app" and is another carve out. It's what Netflix and Kindle does, for instance. But only Patreon would have the numbers on whether or not doing that is worth it. I suppose it's not.
afaik they could even not entirely shut down the app but solely shut down the ability to subscribe through the app. iirc Apple has a lot of stringent rules about how much you can communicate to...
afaik they could even not entirely shut down the app but solely shut down the ability to subscribe through the app. iirc Apple has a lot of stringent rules about how much you can communicate to users in these circumstances (for instance, you can't tell them to go to a web browser to subscribe iirc) but to my knowledge Spotify implemented something like this at some point.
Foolish. I’m sure there’s legal/marketing/accounting teams with good reasons, but “per output “ billing is a very smart part of Patreon and nuking that is only to their eventual detriment
Foolish. I’m sure there’s legal/marketing/accounting teams with good reasons, but “per output “ billing is a very smart part of Patreon and nuking that is only to their eventual detriment
“We strongly disagree with this decision,” Patreon said in the announcement blog. “Creators need consistency and clarity in order to build healthy, long-term businesses. Instead, creators using legacy billing will now have to endure the whiplash of another policy reversal – the third such change from Apple in the past 18 months.”
I think this is an incredibly simplistic view of things, and it gives me an impression of “there are no morals, only laws and rules, so if you have the power and influence to enforce unfair rules...
If they want access to the app store, they have to go by Apple's rules.
I think this is an incredibly simplistic view of things, and it gives me an impression of “there are no morals, only laws and rules, so if you have the power and influence to enforce unfair rules because you have a monopoly then everyone should simply accept that’s how things are”
Maybe I’m misrepresenting your opinion here, but I strongly disagree with the idea that monopolies should be simply allowed by society to create “take it or leave it” rules just for being non-contributing middlemen.
I agree. I think it's a more-or-less fair take when choices are more-or-less equivalent, but once you start throwing in monopolies and choices that aren't really choices it's time for an authority...
I agree. I think it's a more-or-less fair take when choices are more-or-less equivalent, but once you start throwing in monopolies and choices that aren't really choices it's time for an authority to step in and bring protections.
One of the difficulties I find in having discussions around 'choice' in many current markets is the amount of vertical integrations happening. It's one thing to say, "Well they chose Apple, so...
One of the difficulties I find in having discussions around 'choice' in many current markets is the amount of vertical integrations happening. It's one thing to say, "Well they chose Apple, so they chose that system where Apple decides everything for them", even if you ignore that Google is the only real alternative, it still wouldn't be that valid of an argument even if there were 3 alternatives. The greater the vertical integrations, the more alternatives are needed to be able to 'choose' on any specific level what type of business you want to engage with.
You can choose Apple over Google if you value privacy, but then you can't choose a more open choice platform to install apps because Apple doesn't let you do this. Prior to RCS, and still now to some extent due to lack of widespread compatibility and encryption, you could choose a platform with superior messaging experience in the US, or you can prioritize something else, but you can't just choose on a bunch of different levels. Even if there were 4 mobile OS platforms, with the level of vertical integration happening, you still couldn't really make very specific choices except over maybe one or two additional differentiators. You're forced to compromise on so much you don't want because of this. The dimensions of the products and services are so vast that you can't exert but a minuscule degree of choice over a small sliver of what encompasses the whole product or service.
I don't like Google at all, I would prefer Apple on many different fronts, yet one choice in particular is so heavily weighted for me, the ability to install apps that aren't corporate approved, I have no choice but to stick with Google even though I'd be more aligned on a wider scale with what Apple is doing than what Google is doing. And don't get me wrong, for me there's still a lot to dislike about Apple as well, just Google is worse.
Is this one of those things where Americans always have trouble paying for things? Wouldn't everyone just use a credit card? Why is your phone manufacturer even getting involved?
Is this one of those things where Americans always have trouble paying for things?
Wouldn't everyone just use a credit card? Why is your phone manufacturer even getting involved?
Nope, this is a worldwide thing. Because they can. No technical reason. It's fairly widespread; if you get a PS5 or a Switch, it's the same deal as well. Because of the iPhone's reach it does make...
Nope, this is a worldwide thing.
Why is your phone manufacturer even getting involved?
Because they can. No technical reason. It's fairly widespread; if you get a PS5 or a Switch, it's the same deal as well. Because of the iPhone's reach it does make more of an impact.
Since this is a global thing and is the case on both iPhone and Android (and I'd expect someone who uses an alternative to those two to already be knowledgeable about the whole issue with these...
Since this is a global thing and is the case on both iPhone and Android (and I'd expect someone who uses an alternative to those two to already be knowledgeable about the whole issue with these types of payments), I have to wonder how you've managed to avoid owning a smartphone, or at least paying for anything through the App Store or Google Play Store, for so long.
I don’t think I’ve spent any money on the App Store within the last year and maybe not even ever. Not the comment you replied to but for some people like me, this is a completely plausible...
I don’t think I’ve spent any money on the App Store within the last year and maybe not even ever. Not the comment you replied to but for some people like me, this is a completely plausible situation to be in...
I can understand not having spent money on it recently for sure, but I find it bewildering that someone can have interacted with it so little that they don't even understand what paying for...
I can understand not having spent money on it recently for sure, but I find it bewildering that someone can have interacted with it so little that they don't even understand what paying for something through the App Store is, based on their comment.
(This is all from a U.S.-based perspective; I know there are other places like the EU where it’s slightly less terrible)
Honestly, it’s not surprising that Apple is trying again. I understand why Apple feels they are entitled to 30% of anyone who touches an iPhone’s money (they’re wrong and they aren’t), but they are just burning so much good will in their quest to increase that all important services revenue.
I know regular, non-tech people who complain that things are more expensive on the App Store. And quite a few who go out of their way to subscribe directly on the web or to a creator so they can make sure more of the money actually goes to the people doing the things they want to support and not a trillion dollar corporation.
I guess a few extra billion is worth pissing your customers off. Where else are they gonna go? Android, which has the same problem?
I'm not sure if it really pisses customers off, though. I mean, I agree that Apple is being gross and monopolistic. But I actually love paying for things through Apple because they put all my subscriptions in one place and remind me before they renew so I remember to cancel the ones I don't want any more (especially since companies push you toward annual subscriptions these days). I can also cancel anything from one screen without navigating a labyrinth for each individual service I want to cancel.
If the government regulated these things more tightly and required companies to make it easy to cancel, and alert you before renewal, then Apple would have less power because we wouldn't "need" a monopolist to act as the regulator.
The FTC did in fact do this right before Trump dropped in. Cancelling needs to be as easy as signing up.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-click-cancel-rule-making-it-easier-consumers-end-recurring
And sadly, I say "right before Trump" for a reason. As you'd expect, companies filed lawsuits and it's being tied up in courts:
https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2025/07/23/eighth-circuit-voids-ftc-click-to-cancel-rule/
So, yeah. That pretty much says it all. Can't let comsumer rights affect the GDP.
But in a shocking twist, Congress picked this back up this week:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/27/click-to-cancel-subscriptions-congress.html
But this Congress isn't exactly one I'd place my hopes on. Love to be proven wrong.
My main point is that this issue is like 2025 as a whole: a roller coaster of emotions where you can see good people trying and not so good people throwing a lot of money as obstruction.
Also, that Apple is on the not so good camp and would push this regardless of the law. So I wouldn't take rhese features as pro consumer ones.
Oh I agree that Apple is certainly not "pro consumer". They're pro getting more money, or maybe even just increasing their share price, and nothing else. Their business model (at least currently) just tends to line up a bit better with what is good for their users than many companies, probably because they aren't so dependent on advertising.
Quite a lot of the non-techy people I know explicitly search outside the App Store before buying subscriptions because they know it’s usually more expensive to subscribe in app. And they all know it’s because Apple wants to take a cut.
The limited choices of the consumer are definitely a problem. Fortunately, there are sometimes alternatives within the Android ecosystem, Google Play (as big a chunk as that is) isn't the entirety of the app ecosystem so we can leverage that to our advantage.
For instance, since Google and its Play store had the in-app dispute with Epic, Amazon made it so that you can't buy kindle content through the Kindle app from Google Play as a means of cutting Google out of the revenue. But you can download the Kindle app via the Samsung (Galaxy) store and still make in-app purchases with the Kindle for Samsung app. Audible for Samsung is the same way. I would imagine that whatever store LG has probably has something similar, though I'm not familiar with their section of the Android ecosystem.
If people would look for these alternatives and popularize them, it would let people help themselves somewhat and hopefully segment the ecosystem in a way where there's more competition. Patreon should also put a version of the app out on the alternative Android stores as well.
You can make in-app Kindle purchase via the regular Play Store app again. Have been for over a year now, just FYI
Edit: Double checked, same with Audible.
Just gotta keep fueling those future antitrust lawsuits, huh? Was it really not enough to take a cut of Patreon's 5-10% cut (I. E. The actual app hosted on Apple servers), that you need to reach their creators too (who are not IOS devs nor have any contracts with Apple)?
I find it especially cowardly since this is hiding what they really want: their compromise of a 30% tax on their own IOS customers who simply want to support people they like and believe in. This is like having a friend over for a night and your landlord charges them for rent too. Literal rent-seeking
I have no experience with Patreon, nor do I have an Apple phone. If I'm interpreting this right, they expect a cut of ALL payments made on the official iOS Patreon app, regardless of whether the creators are doing anything related to iOS? They expect the fee JUST because the app is on their device?
My first thought is "Would Apple expect a cut from people buying things on an Amazon app?"
My second thought: would it be viable for Patreon to just shut down the iOS app entirely? Not sure what features might make the app more preferable over the website. Could they make some special mobile site that basically has the same interface? Or have it so that billing and payments are handled exclusively on the website instead of the iOS app?
I know web and app design are different, but that might be a better option in the long run than having to deal with Apple's BS if they've changed the policy three times in 18 months.
No, there is a carveout for payment for physical goods. Although for Kindle, yes, Apple would expect a cut.
Only Patreon would have the numbers for that, but since they're complying, probably not.
This is possible. This is called a "reader app" and is another carve out. It's what Netflix and Kindle does, for instance. But only Patreon would have the numbers on whether or not doing that is worth it. I suppose it's not.
Patreon should absolutely shut down the app.
afaik they could even not entirely shut down the app but solely shut down the ability to subscribe through the app. iirc Apple has a lot of stringent rules about how much you can communicate to users in these circumstances (for instance, you can't tell them to go to a web browser to subscribe iirc) but to my knowledge Spotify implemented something like this at some point.
Foolish. I’m sure there’s legal/marketing/accounting teams with good reasons, but “per output “ billing is a very smart part of Patreon and nuking that is only to their eventual detriment
Somehow I don’t think this is patreon’s decision
Oh I know it's not. It's stated as such. It's just unfortunate because it's going to affect everyone involved.
Mirror: https://archive.is/Xldpe
If they want access to the app store, they have to go by Apple's rules. Users are fully entitled to accessing patreon via a web browser.
I think this is an incredibly simplistic view of things, and it gives me an impression of “there are no morals, only laws and rules, so if you have the power and influence to enforce unfair rules because you have a monopoly then everyone should simply accept that’s how things are”
Maybe I’m misrepresenting your opinion here, but I strongly disagree with the idea that monopolies should be simply allowed by society to create “take it or leave it” rules just for being non-contributing middlemen.
I agree. I think it's a more-or-less fair take when choices are more-or-less equivalent, but once you start throwing in monopolies and choices that aren't really choices it's time for an authority to step in and bring protections.
One of the difficulties I find in having discussions around 'choice' in many current markets is the amount of vertical integrations happening. It's one thing to say, "Well they chose Apple, so they chose that system where Apple decides everything for them", even if you ignore that Google is the only real alternative, it still wouldn't be that valid of an argument even if there were 3 alternatives. The greater the vertical integrations, the more alternatives are needed to be able to 'choose' on any specific level what type of business you want to engage with.
You can choose Apple over Google if you value privacy, but then you can't choose a more open choice platform to install apps because Apple doesn't let you do this. Prior to RCS, and still now to some extent due to lack of widespread compatibility and encryption, you could choose a platform with superior messaging experience in the US, or you can prioritize something else, but you can't just choose on a bunch of different levels. Even if there were 4 mobile OS platforms, with the level of vertical integration happening, you still couldn't really make very specific choices except over maybe one or two additional differentiators. You're forced to compromise on so much you don't want because of this. The dimensions of the products and services are so vast that you can't exert but a minuscule degree of choice over a small sliver of what encompasses the whole product or service.
I don't like Google at all, I would prefer Apple on many different fronts, yet one choice in particular is so heavily weighted for me, the ability to install apps that aren't corporate approved, I have no choice but to stick with Google even though I'd be more aligned on a wider scale with what Apple is doing than what Google is doing. And don't get me wrong, for me there's still a lot to dislike about Apple as well, just Google is worse.
Is this one of those things where Americans always have trouble paying for things?
Wouldn't everyone just use a credit card? Why is your phone manufacturer even getting involved?
Nope, this is a worldwide thing.
Because they can. No technical reason. It's fairly widespread; if you get a PS5 or a Switch, it's the same deal as well. Because of the iPhone's reach it does make more of an impact.
Since this is a global thing and is the case on both iPhone and Android (and I'd expect someone who uses an alternative to those two to already be knowledgeable about the whole issue with these types of payments), I have to wonder how you've managed to avoid owning a smartphone, or at least paying for anything through the App Store or Google Play Store, for so long.
I don’t think I’ve spent any money on the App Store within the last year and maybe not even ever. Not the comment you replied to but for some people like me, this is a completely plausible situation to be in...
I can understand not having spent money on it recently for sure, but I find it bewildering that someone can have interacted with it so little that they don't even understand what paying for something through the App Store is, based on their comment.