Apple’s App Store profits on commissions from digital sales
Revenue $32 B
Operating Costs $7 B [1]
Estimated Profit $25 B
Operating Margin ~78%
[1] R&D, security, hosting, human review, and including building and maintaining developer tools Xcode, APIs, and SDKs.
Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.
Fun Fact: During the Epic trial, it was revealed that Apple's profit margins on the App Store were so high that even Apple's own executives were sometimes surprised by the internal financial reports.
---
edit: There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.
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 don't have anything to do with this process except for listing the Patreon app on the app store, can justify taking a cut.
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.
Apple users seem to be fine with everything being much more expensive. Not only the 30% apple tax itself, developers know Apple users pay more and specify higher prices on Apple.
Google allows out–of–store installation (for now...) so it's much easier to argue there's competition. Apps installed through F–Droid don't have this tax.
And in the EU alternative app stores are allowed on iphone as well. In both cases, it’s a near negligible amount of people that use them. Your exceptions prove the rule, if anything.
> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else.
Frankly, yes, please. I mean, I'm biased as my whole career is in web app development, but there are so many things these days that do not need a whole native app. They're just communicating with a server backend somewhere, using none of the unique native functionality of the phone (much of which is available in browser APIs these days anyway). I can block ads in a web app much more easily. It's much harder to do customer-hostile things like block screenshots in a web app.
Native apps definitely have a place, but I think they're very overused, mostly for reasons that benefit the business at the expense of the customer.
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 browser will unload the app, and you will always get this friction when you load the web app on the new render you don't have on regular apps.
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.
I disagree, native apps on iOS have important abilities that no web application can match. The inability to control cache long-term is alone a dealbreaker if trying to create an experience with minimal friction.
I think the parent may be referring to the fact that safari/webkit will evict all localstorage/indexeddb/caches etc after 7 days of not visiting a site. And apparently this now extends to PWAs making it a pretty big blog to building any infrequently accessed PWA that needs to persist user data locally.
Those same elevated controls are used to steal PII and sell to data brokers. Again, it's the companies that are trying to force apps on their users. If it were genuinely a much better UX, they wouldn't have to do that.
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've probably deleted 15 apps from my phone in the past year as I steadily move over to the web for everything.
My chat agent, file transfer tool, Grubhub, Amazon, YouTube, news, weather are all deleted in favor of a set of armored browsers that suppress the trash and clean up the experience. Its been an amazing change, as those companies no longer get a free advertisement on the application grid of my phone, making my use of them much more intentional.
Sure, once the user interacts with the first video.
If third party native apps were installed and run without user interaction the same as cross-origin redirects, I would expect the same limitations with native apps.
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
You couldn't make that argument because Patreon is also a platform to host content, not just send money. If it was something like a twitch donation app the argument would make more sense
The hosting aspect is only necessary because a) piracy and b) Google would eat their lunch if they were the gate keeper to content. Bit like how Ticketmaster takes all the money from artists because they get to say who sits in a seat.
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.
I would be surprised by that because iPhone users would notice that. I think the App Store model relies on their fee being invisible to consumers, and the increased price you’re paying not being linked to them. AFAIK apps aren’t allowed to explain that they charge more if you subscribe on iPhone to users either, or why they do so.
True, hard for bank deposits where the user sees both ends of the transaction.
For bill payments though, they'd just insist on taking 30% of your electric bill payment and if the electric company's margins aren't high enough to absorb that then "Haha that sounds like a you problem" - Tim Cook, probably
While you're correct, it's worth noting that this only happened because the judge in the Epic lawsuit ordered an injunction forcing Apple to allow it.
Apple then "maliciously complied", allowing it while demanding a 27% fee on any web-based payments, which was found to be a violation of the injunction.
> For U.S. fans, there’s still a way to avoid Apple’s fee. When signing up in the iOS app, they can choose web checkout instead of Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple’s rules require that any paid content shown in the iOS app is also available to purchase through Apple’s in-app system.
When you use Apple Pay, Apple collects ~0.15% (15 bps) from the issuing banks for credit.
$1B in transaction volume = $1.5M
In 2022 the total volume was estimated at $6T * .15% = $9B. Real number would be maybe half due to lower fees on debit, but it's hugely profitable for Apple, and carries zero risk.
I think this is a very strong and simple argument to use with regulators, politicians etc.
When I put my credit card into Apples ecosystem they take a 0.15% cut of the transaction and appear to be very happy with the results. When I put my application into the ecosystem they take 30%..
You can then break down why this is, but boy is that an interesting contrast.
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
If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.
If you were a chain store in a high end mall where customers cars were all parked for free by valets, mall staff knew their names, and generally made them feel special, you’d not balk at a higher commission to be paid to mall for access to their customers, right? Airports come to mind for this.
I believe apple lets you set whatever price you want on their store, just not tell customers that they could get a lower price elsewhere/on the vendor’s website (I don’t follow App Store policies very closely so my info is probably out of date).
Presumably you also would agree that it's fair if Chrome, Windows, and Lenovo all charged me 30% each for using Patreon via Chrome+Windows on a thinkpad, right?
They're doing about as much to facilitate my use of Patreon as Apple is.
This isn't like a mall at all. This is like a web browser, where apps are webpages, and Apple is insisting that the contents of that webpage are something they can dictate all payment terms on.
For the airport analogy to work, it would have to be that you go to the Airport, go into the electronics store, buy a Kindle, and then the Airport insists it can take 30% not just on the purchase of the kindle, but 30% on every single book you buy on the kindle forever.
Apple taking a cut on the purchase price of an app that a user found via the app store does make some sense. Apple taking a cut of an in-app interaction with a creator that the user almost certainly found elsewhere is nonsense.
What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app? Why does Patreon have to add a 30% cut on in-app content, when Safari lets me pay for in-app content with my credit card without taking any cut?
I agree that if someone discovered the artist elsewhere, Apple has weaker standing in claiming a huge commission. But if they found an artist elsewhere, they would also know that they can support that artist elsewhere and not through the iOS app. If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.
That's not worth 30%. Imagine if Youtube charged 30% for anyone who clicked a link under a video in a web browser.
Even if people do enjoy browsing through the PAtreon app and choosing creators they want to subscribe to, that's not worth 30%. Rent-seeking is a cognitive disease.
And if I access Patreon via Chrome on Windows, and use Chrome on Windows to consume the artist's content, clearly I prefer the Chrome and Windows experience, so Microsoft and Google should be getting their 30% cut, right?
... and of course the user found the artist elsewhere than the iOS app store. They found them on youtube, or reddit, or _possibly_ on the webview inside the patreon iOS app, which is also _not_ apple's App Store content, it's content provided by Patreon.
Again, should accessing my bank via the Safari or Chrome iOS app mean apple gets 30% of all my bank transactions, just because they were displayed on a webview inside an iOS app?
There's a large amount of Apples:Oranges comparisons here that should be obvious to people who even read the headline, "in the iOS app" not "on iOS", as your comparison indicates.
Sure, if Google wants to start a business model where your websites only load if you sign a business agreement and agree to commissions.
However, regulators would probably take note that Google has been aggressively pushing their browser for free for over a decade to gain market share, and have a field day.
The difference is that Apple's business model hasn't changed - you've always been restricted to distributing apps under a business agreement, and the conditions on commissions have been pretty consistent since inception, or at least since IAP was added in 2009.
"What ifs" about Apple charging 30% for bank transactions would run afoul of regulators. This is about consuming member-exclusive goods and services in-app, which again has been in the contract terms since 2009.
Goods and services consumed outside of the app (such as purchases of physical items on Amazon, or plane tickets or the like) are actually forbidden from using in-app purchase and do not have a commission rate.
>If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.
I hate IOS enough that I'm running at least a full numbered version behind with updates turned off and never plan to buy another IOS device, and I'm subscribed to multiple Patreons started through the IOS app merely because it was the device in my hand and they automatically funnel Patreon links to it.
Chrome, Windows and Lenovo don't have the payment system baked in, with all the consumer protections that come with it.
I'm not entirely pro-Apple percentage in this argument, but I think people often dismiss the magical thing that Apple created with the app store and their payment/subscription system. The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.
I've gone directly to my bank for subscription charges billed directly to my credit card and they wouldn't reverse or stop them. Cancelling and reversing on the App Store is basic, easy, and friction-free.
Plus, the Android environment doesn't yield nearly the same sales volume even with significantly more installed units.
People spend on iOS and they don't spend on other platforms.
30% hurts and it sucks, but.. Patreon will probably take it because they'll do the math and it won't come out in favor of the alternative. That's what really sucks, beyond Apple max-max-maxing this.
>The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.
This keeps getting repeated but it's not actually my experience. Not even Apple believes it, otherwise they could avoid a lot of legal and regulatory trouble by giving users a choice: Pay through Apple for an extra 30% protection fee.
I had a Patreon subscription I forgot about. I went to Patreon and ended it. It took about a minute, including filling out the feedback form about why I was quitting.
Chrome doesn't do this, Chrome has a wallet and you're still stuck talking to your credit card company.
It looks like you may have edited your comment, but the issues of Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues.
> you're still stuck talking to your credit card company
AFAIK Apple still talks to it too, they just have a deeper/better experience on the platforms they own and provide a service where they can generate a virtual card for you, so you're shielded from the merchant, but not from your card issuer.
> Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues
Yes and no, because Apple wants to use the closed nature of their ecosystem to offer their solution as the only possible one, yet at the same time claim that they deserve their 30% cut because it's the best solution out there and they provide so much value.
It might've been HN weirdness. I was getting the one sentence in one view and the whole message in the other view. Re-loading didn't get them consistent. Hmm.
>What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app?
Sure they could, and usage of those products to purchase goods would nominally drop to 0%. People do not care about a lot of things, but they do care about losing money.
Apple would then force the with-IAP price to be the same as the without-IAP price so that they get a 30% cut of your rent regardless. You may be underestimating their willingness to tax all economic activity
While this would obviously be harmful to the consumer, I don't see this as plausible.
Amazon was able to achieve this by positioning themselves as the primary distributor of the goods in question. Apple is in no position to leverage a monopoly over fiat transer or housing supply.
With regard to municipal transportation, perhaps they are edging closer with Apple Pay, NFC, Wallet, etc.. but I can't imagine municipalities supporting, or constituents accepting, a tax on their existing taxes.
Of course, maybe Apple.gov is the long game. Hard to say whether that would be better or worse that the status quo..
> If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.
When I paid over $1000 to buy an iPhone I thought I was buying a technological product that I could use to improve my life.
I didn’t realize I was buying a ticket to Disneyland where the seller of the product decided how I interacted with everything the device enabled.
I don’t think this should be disallowed. I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.
> I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.
I wonder if that has ever been tried against Apple or a similar company in a court of law, because I think there might be real merit there. One would have to get a bunch of people together claiming a refund on the purchase price on the grounds that ownership hasn't been transferred and therefore Apple is in breach of contract in relation to the contract for sale of an iPhone. Then those people would have to bring a class action, and the case would revolve around the concept of "ownership". Because "ownership", to a first approximation, means the legal right to do with some piece of property essentially as you please, and Apple is clearly basing much of their business on the assumption that users do not have those rights and is taking positive action to prevent users from exercising such rights.
I don't know much about the law in the rest of the world, except Germany, but in Germany that would certainly be the case, and there is a surprising amount of case law revolving around such things as horses or other animals being sold, and the former owner then trying to restrict the new owner in exercising their ownership rights, which generally end with ownership rights being upheld by courts.
I’ve been thinking for a while now that a really effective way to deal with problem companies would be coordinate a mass action on small claims closets around the world all on the same day.
Often in small claims court you win by default if the other person doesn’t show up and I’m sure judges know average will sympathize with the kinds of arguments that you raised above.
I don't know. We don't have any such thing as small claims court in Germany, but my expectation would be that judges in low-level courts will try their very best not to get noticed for setting any kind of precedent whatsoever. The only thing that's going to happen if you rule against Apple in a low-level court is that they will go into revision, and carrying a high probability that the higher-level judge will overturn the decision and make the lower-level judge look bad in the process.
Also, any kind of effort to annoy someone by bringing coordinated actions in lots of venues all at the same time is probably abuse of process.
The idea isn't just to use small claims courts, but to use whatever first level legal venue to seek redress you can find in your area. That might mean small claims courts, or consumer protection bureaus, or binding arbitration. Whatever it is the idea is to coordinate with others to do so in a way that strains the resources of the organization you're fighting against and is in venues that are sympathetic to consumers and are able to make clear judgements with little chance for the opposing side to appeal.
The goal of this isn't to annoy someone, the goal is to seek compensation for their unacceptable behavior and raise awareness of it so that others may do so as well.
With the mindboggling assymetry in resources between a single individual and an entity like Apple or Google it only makes sense for people to team up and coordinate against them.
Case law isn't directly normative in civil law traditions like Germany and France in the same way it is in common law traditions like the U.S. and U.K. But court decisions that are deemed interesting do get picked up in journals, cited in academic literature, and cited by other judges in their own decisions. There is a herd dynamics psychology where judges and academic writers default to following along with the principles established in each other's decisions and academic writing, rather than go against that consensus. (Unless their conviction is very strong, and they are, depending on the gravity of the issue, willing to stake their reputations and careers on those convictions). -- I brushed over that distinction when I used the term “precedent”. In my mind it's pot-ay-toh po-tah-toh.
You have the legal right to do anything to your iPhone that you please, except for DMCA circumvention. Apple, cleverly, designs it so you can't do very much without DMCA circumvention. But it is the government's fault for this loophole, not Apple's.
I subscribe to a half dozen creators and I have exclusively used the web interface to subscribe and consume this content. You cannot tell me with a straight face that if the only difference was I subscribed on my phone to someone who charges me $10/mo, Apple is entitled to $36 for the first year and $18/yr in perpetuity thereafter.
I don’t think anyone suggests Apple should get nothing for their app store services, just that it shouldn’t be 30% of every transaction processed through every iOS app.
The EU has the right approach. Don't try to legislate exactly what is a fair/unfair amount of profit to make - change the rules of the game by requiring third party marketplaces and payment platforms so apple has to lower rates or lose every app into a third party store.
Apple can easily say "Use our store exclusively and you get our security/privacy guarantees. Go outside our store and you're in the wild west". App developers can then decide how much fee they are willing to pay for access to the user base who refuse to venture into the wild west. Other stores might try to persuade users that they are more secure and more private too via stricter review policies or more locked down permissions etc.
From a consumer point of view, the best approach would be if devlopers had to sell their app in Apple's App Store (if Apple approves) and could optionally provide other purchasing options on top of that.
It would prevent fragmentation and give people a choice to pay up if they actually value Apple's extra protections (if any).
They did lower them to 15% due to regulatory pressure for smaller vendors.
And for compliance with EU DSA, they've tried countless malicious compliance efforts, that have been struck down again and again.
The only reason they haven't been smacked with a billion dollar fine for their Bullshit (Core Technology Fee)yet, is because of Trump.
I don’t read it that way. I think the point is it doesn’t make sense that apple is taking a cut of a transaction that is not in their payment rails*. Apple can still be compensated for their App store service without using a model that takes 30% of all transactions, e.g. a listing fee, an app review fee, etc.
*And anything on their payment rails should have a normal transaction fee, e.g. Stripe’s retail rate is 2.9% + $0.30.
This is the model they have moved to in the EU - an annual per user-app core technology fee for apps enabled to be listed outside the store, and relaxed in-store rules (and reduced commissions) if you choose to still list in Apple's App Store. Effectively, they are acting as if commissions are paying the core technology fee, and subsidizing it for apps which aren't profitable.
The per-user model means that apps which have adopted freemium and advertising-driven models wind up having quite different financials, and could be more expensive.
Yes it's fine but the 30% should be charged to the customer who wants to stay within that ecosystem of course. If they want that white glove treatment they can pay for it. Of course once the users see how much that fluffy ecosystem actually costs them I bet most of them will just pay patreon directly :)
If the platform like patreon is supposed to absorb that fee they will increase prices for everyone even people who won't touch Apple like me. That's not fair. Or more likely, they will just give less to the content creators.
In the EU it's already forbidden to force payments through Apple or to forbid the platforms to charge the fee back to the customer.
Don't worry, we are well into "car branded fuel only" territory with electric vehicles.
"Buy our electricity at a huge markup to power your vehicle. Oh, you don't have one of our vehicles? Sorry, that's an extra 10% on top"
This was dystopic scifi like 20 years ago and Americans are so clueless they just sleepwalked into it because they'd rather not have a government at all.
Certainly not defending Apple's behavior in this instance, but isn't the success of the larger product ecosystem a direct driver of their App Store profitability? To strictly evaluate the App Store finances in isolation seems to be the sort of accusation you've levied against Apple in the opposite direction..
I like Apple less and less these days for various reasons, but I haven't purchased an app on the App Store in more than a decade. It's strictly a vehicle for local utilities when, for whatever reason, a browser will not suffice. Nearly all purchasing is done on the 'open' web.
What really makes it uncomfortable is that Apple isn't just a neutral marketplace. They control the OS, the distribution channel, and the payment rails, so creators and platforms like Patreon can't realistically opt out
The whole Epic vs Apple was about Apple blocking this. Before being slapped by regulators, Apple had anti-steering policies forbidding iOS apps from even mentioning that purchasing elsewhere is possible.
Even after EU DSA told them to allow purchases via Web, Apple literally demanded a 27% cut from purchases happening outside of App Store (and then a bunch of other arrogantly greedy fee structures that keeps them in courts).
Apple knows how hard is not to be in the duopoly of app stores. They keep web apps half-assed, won't direct users to them, but allow knock-off apps to use your trademarks in their search keywords.
They do and it’s awful. I’m making a browser based game and it works great on desktop browsers but Apple refuses to allow css filters on canvas forcing you to build your own filters and apply them to image data. The web audio api is also a pain to get working properly on iOS safari and a bunch of other arbitrary but feels like they’re intentional obstacles found only on iOS. I’m almost considering just using webgl instead of a 2d context but who knows what obstacles apple is hiding there also it will make everything so much more verbose for no real gain.
Not even in the days of IE was I ever this frustrated.
> Not even in the days of IE was I ever this frustrated.
I've been web devving since the days of IE as well and this reeks of hyperbole. Maybe things are different for browser games, but for me, everything has vastly improved since those days.
Well maybe we are doing different things. Back in those days Javascript and CSS were much simpler people would cry about the position of elements and easy stuff like that. However I have to manually manage web audio api memory because if you don't release the buffers and other things the memory won't get released until the tab in closed, so it's easy for a tab to inexpertly take up 6gigs plus of ram (1min of audio is ~80mb), it's impossible to know that, that is happening unless you know, so you have this missive memory leak that even refreshing the tab won't fix and you have no idea why it happening, that is true frustration. You have to manage memory in canvas too especially if you are using bitmaps and if you are on iOS because it will crash the page because you looked at it wrong. I don't know anything that would have crashed the page in IE back in the day. So no, it is not hyperbole :)
Sorry, I shouldn't comment before I have my coffee. Saying it "reeks of hyperbole" was unnecessarily rude.
That does sound frustrating. You're working with APIs that I don't usually touch (audio, canvas) so it's not surprising that I haven't experienced that. I was thinking back to the days I had to support IE 8, trying to debug weird issues in production like scripts not working because `console.log` wasn't defined unless the developer tools were opened.
To be fair, he's completely right. I have a lot of experience with IE6 and safari on iOS, and while IE6 was bad and did weird shit, Safari is much worse. It's amazing that things can work in any browser, without ever even thinking about it, but then on Safari you get weird behaviour, straight up rendering bugs because of some weird race conditions with the engine or even crashes.
The latest issue that I've noticed yesterday is the button nav bar on the screen when running PWAs. The button is over the bottom navbar of the PWA, and despite apple themselves coming up with the API to inform the browser about safe display areas, it doesn't work in PWAs on iOS. PWA mode on iOS != non PWA on iOS. They often behave completely different and you often have to use JS for basic things to work, like clicking a link(yup, this was a thing for years).
I tried something similar a couple years back, and fully agree. Safari is atrocious for trying to create a good mobile experience. It almost feels intentional.
Due to the web's distributed nature, "all" is impossible, but there are plenty of ranked-by-rating lists of web games out there. I don't want to be spammy so I'm only gonna link one of them that comes to mind, but there are a lot of other listings you can find at any search engine of your choice!
(All is impossible for both iOS and Android also: Games that don't get updated, games that get unlisted due to having a link to their own website with the wrong phrasing next to it, games that get unlisted due to the app store owner not being satisfied with the description page for the game, regional restrictions, requests from governments to remove socially unacceptable apps, etc)
My point was that the web has orders of magnitude worse discoverability than the stores, otherwise everyone would obviously just publish on the web.
Saying "oh just do the thing you aren't doing" shows that one of two things is true: Either every app developer currently doesn't know the web exists, or everyone else knows something you don't.
Your point doesn't make any sense. The only reason Apple's store can have "all" the apps is that they are a monopolist and take steps to disallow anyone from selling apps through any other channel, so there cannot possibly be multiple storefronts with different selections like their is in any other context.
On Android for example, Play Store does not have "all" apps, or even most apps that I have on my phone. Because Play Store has mostly garbage. It's a surprise to no one that Steam's storefront has a different selection from Amazon or Epic or GoG in the same way that no one is surprised that Walmart and Target carry different items.
So "discovery" in your sense is basically "I ignore everything that isn't presented by this particular storefront", i.e. a complete lack of discovery.
If you think "the web has orders of magnitude worse discoverability than mobile app stores" makes no sense, then there's not enough common ground for us to have a productive discussion on this.
Apple doesn't have some special magic "discoverability"; they just prevent any other stores from being able to compete with them. Actually, searching for the iOS app store, I get:
which has no obvious way to even browse or search apps? How am I supposed to see what's available? I need to buy an expensive phone before I can even see what it can run? This is more discoverable? The bottom nav bar entry for "App Store" just takes me to the same page. If I click on "Store" it just shows me hardware; no apps. Where's the store and how am I supposed to find it? Do I need to physically go into an Apple store and use a phone there to browse?
I'm aware of your point. I disagree with it. A lot of companies seemingly have found it viable to have first-class web apps as part of their lineup; Off the top of my head: Uber and Uber Eats, KFC, Patreon, (And every single competitor to Patreon), every single mini-app in China (where discoverability is much higher), etc etc.
There are more app-having companies that have web apps than not
The original point wasn't that it's viable to also have a web app, but whether it's viable to only have a web app. How many of the companies you mentioned don't have mobile apps at all?
Of the patreon alternatives (dependent on content), Substack, X, Youtube, BuyMeACoffee, all have fan-side apps. kofi, Fourthwall, Squarespace, all the NSFW-centric alternatives, do not.
Of the mini-apps in China, I don't know, I was never exposed to the existence of their non-mini-app counterparts.
This rethoric is destructive and threatens society and democracy alike. Apple is not just some company that you can just opt out of, if you're working in a certain field. Just like you can't opt out to YouTube if you're a content creator.
It not like an email service where you can just switch from Gmail to fastmail to proton or to any of the other dozens of big email providers.
Because they don't control those. Apple could choose to only allow users to access websites that pay them a bit 30% fee, but users would notice the web was turned off on their device. They don't notice when the app store does it.
Until a court order stopped them, Apple was collecting a 27% tax on certain external payments even though they didn't control the payment rails. They required developers to report their external payment revenue and sent them invoices. Developers had to commit to that or their apps would be rejected for having external payments.
It's at least "reasonable" that if the app was where users derived usage, and would've purchased thru the app but for the external purchasing option, then apple has a case for it.
However, there's no such case for web (as in, web _only_).
If usage of an app gives Apple some justification for taxing payments, by similar logic would usage of the iPhone itself, and Safari, give them a similar some justification?
"The user would have used our payment rails had there not been other options" seems to apply universally; Apple could say the same thing about website owners steering users away from some expensive "Apple web pay" option.
I think the difference is just leverage. Apple isn't curating what websites iOS users are allowed to visit (yet...), so they can't tell website owners "pay up or we'll block you".
I don't think people would notice if Apple just made the website behind a paywall. Most people are not going to be aware that they can access the same content without paying a fee to Apple. They may only even have an Apple device to access the internet, so they'd just see it as normal
Don't forget they also directly compete with Patreon with podcast subscriptions. You can support a podcast through Apple podcasts or Patreon, but only one of those has a 30% chunk taken out.
That's pretty much the conclusion the EU came to and why they introduced the notion of gatekeepers in the DMA.
It doesn't matter if you are not technically in a dominant position if your special role in a large ecosystem basically allows you to act like one in your own purview.
You could say this kind of move invites more scrutiny but the regulators are already there watching every Apple's move with a microscope and their patience with Apple attempts at thwarting compliance is apparently wearing thin at least in the EU if you look at preliminary findings.
The problem is the monopoly over distribution channels. Regulation needs to force devices to allow A) downloading and using packages & executables from the internet, and B) any app to download and install other apps.
Regulating the fees for one central app store is no solution.
With freedom also comes responsibility, and some innocent people will inevitably shoot themselves in the foot. This is not a strong enough argument for putting everybody else in a cage and letting a duopoly take over virtually all of the distribution of consumer software.
It might be a strong argument depending on the negative effects - I don't think it's very clear cut. Also no, neither Apple nor Google have a duopoly on the distribution of all consumer software. Microsoft exists, for example.
The other problem consideration here is negotiating power.
Today consumers don't have negotiating power over individual developers, but both Apple and Google do. If you complain to Meta about their unwanted tracking, you don't really have many options besides deleting the app (which you should do anyway). But if enough people complain to Apple or Google, they are more inclined to do something and have the power.
While it may be a marriage of convenience, it's undeniable that both companies through their app distribution models have also provided benefits to consumers that developers otherwise would have abused - privacy, screen recording, malicious advertising, &c.
If you want to argue from the standpoint of pro-consumer action, you have to remember that "developers" are usually pretty awful too and will get away with anything they can, even if it harms their customers. A good balance, instead of ideological purity about one "side" or the other is the smarter move. I tend to come down on the side of the mainstream app stores precisely because those asking for more "freedom" to do as they wish are a tiny minority and are usually more technical. I.e. they can jump through the hoops to install 3rd party app stores and jailbreak their phones today, and since you already can do what you want, maybe it's best to just leave the masses alone since they're very obviously happy with the duopoly.
I run GrapheneOS, but I can't use the national digital identity app because it requires Google Play Integrity. I very much cannot do what I want without it having severe consequences because the duopoly is starting to shape the basic digital infrastructure, and critical services start requiring that I use one of the two ecosystems.
I think the principle of digital autonomy should be front and center. Surely we can figure out security models that don't imply that two American tech companies get to call the shots on what people can or cannot do on hardware that they supposedly own.
Yes, but the regulation is wrong, since it is based on an irrational security analysis and cover-my-ass politics which belong in private companies and not in government institutions which are supposed to protect the freedoms of the citizens.
The technical security requirements should not be hard to define, i.e. the platform on which the solution runs should require all keys to be device-bound with a certificate chain from the hardware manufacturer proving this to the issuers during enrollment. The operating system should also be able to verify to the issuer that the hash of the app is recognized as an official app.
However, the strongest integrity level of solutions like Play Integrity - which is the only level that GrapheneOS cannot pass, and which only my national identity app requires - is protecting against very theoretical attacks which I don't believe actually happen in the real world, since it not only protects against fake malicious identity apps, but also against the scenario where a scammer has convinced their target of installing a custom Android operating system which fakes the app integrity verification. This attack requires a victim with a technical aptitude that allows them to unlock the bootloader and use adb, but which is at the same time gullible enough to believe the attacker. It also requires that the attacker builds a malicious Android release for the exact hardware of the victim. Seriously, if the victim is this easy to manipulate and also this resourceful, then the attacker should just convince them to disable biometrics and send the phone to the attacker by mail.
It is very very clever of Google to disguise what is essentially voluntary vendor lock-in as a security feature.
Apple and Google each respectively have a monopoly in their markets. Only apple approved apps may be installed on an iPhone.
Digital goods DO NOT work like physical goods. I can just buy another washing machine. I CANNOT just choose to opt out of using a smartphone. My choices are apple or Google, and even within those choices it's limited by network effects.
Well, you have to balance it with how much you want to line the coffers of malicious actors.
If you go all the way to "everyone should have the freedom to get pwned", then you are also funneling the money of innocents into the pockets of some of the worst people in the world, and that's not a great outcome just to make life more convient for some HNers.
The question is about what trade-off makes sense for most people. That probably is some sort of escape hatch nontech people just won't do.
Maybe it's a hard thing to appreciate until you've watched aging family members get tricked by absolute scum, mostly enabled by how loosey-goosey modern computing can still be.
The thing is, apple decides this for themselves, on a product that you fully bought and privately own. It bundles the most brilliant and most incompetent clueless people into 1 group and goes for lowest denominator. No freedom of choice.
Of course thats PR argument, in reality its about distorting and manipulating the market to get the most money out of its users and bind them to their ecosystem as hard as possible to extract even more. And the amount of those same people who uncritically defend them here is still staggering. But maybe its just employees ignoring their ndas, some investors and similar folks.
You can make the default locked down and still allow other operating systems, and most alternative operating systems will also come with a suitably strong security model that does not easily allow the user to fuck themselves. I don't think not locking everything down completely will inevitably lead to every elderly person becoming a victim of scam, so I don't acknowledge that argument.
I hate the classic apple users' "mom" argument. Why are all your moms morons? And why do you want to fuck up the entire mobile landscape to baby proof it for them. Im not gonna ruin my experience with technology because you dont expect your mom to be able to wipe her ass without apple's help
I hate the classic “everyone should be an expert at IT and it’s their fault and they had it coming due to their own ignorance if they make mistakes” argument far more than you hate mine.
> no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism
Right on. But that's exactly the wiggle room where voters could pull some of those cards like "climate change mitigation (of consequences)", "climate change preparation", "upcoming waves of climate change refugees", "AI dividing the population", "Universal Basic Income", all of which are things companies like Apple won't do anything for (or against) while their goods are still mostly for proper earners and not for people who buy stuff at a discount (I'm exaggerating).
Since corporate altruism is definitely not on the menu, government institutions and NGOs will have to pick up way more than they are currently prepared for.
We are in a strange phase of calm before the storm, despite all those wars and conflicts--or in spite of them, I don't know. Shits' gonna hit the fan sooner or later and it's up to the voters to demand adequate preparation.
Big Corps caused significantly more damage than they had to cause for all those profits, whether as a side effect or not, and they did that long enough.
Job cuts, whether due to AI or not, will remain a thing while no "new" giants will rise for quite a while ... and corporations will sing the song "it's what the people want" only as long as voters will stay quiet.
Sure, bribes, corruption and blablabla, but it doesn't change how votes work and none of it changes how the devoted clerks in the administration do their jobs and write laws (if they have to have to) ...
> Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.
We can say this to any company, "$X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits", but it doesn't really make any sense. Making profits is what makes a company a company instead of a non-profit organization.
It does make sense to highlight, because this kind of statistic is a very strong indicator that the market is not competitive. This is not a normal kind of profit margin and basically everyone except for Apple would benefit from them lowering the margins.
In normal markets there are competitors who force each other to keep reasonable profit margins and to improve their product as opposed to milking other people's hard work at the expense of the consumer.
Might not be competitive but it’s totally voluntary. No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter, so clearly consumers are willing and able to pay this.
The consumer is willing to pay the price based on the perceived value from the App Store
The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
> The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
Collective action by the creators would help.
All they have to do is dual-host (a fairly trivial matter, compared to organised collective action). What would make things even better is if they dual host on a competing platform and specify in their content that the competing platform charges lower fees. If even 10% of the creators did this:
1. Many of the consumers would switch.
2. Many of the creators not on the competing platform would also offer dual-hosting.
The problem is not "As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set". The problem is the mindset that their content is not their own.
I say it's their mindset, because they certainly don't act as if they own the content - when your content is available only via a single channel, you don't own your content, you are simply a supplier for that channel.
How? I thought it was a Patreon thing - the "competing platform" would be competing with the Patreon app.
I'm not familiar with Patreon, but I thought the way it worked was that you could tip content creators via the Patreon app. I'm pretty certain that Apple cannot tell Patreon (a third party) that they are only allowed to offer exclusive content.
Apple doesn’t allow you to mention that you have alternate payment channels on other platforms. Can’t even allude to it.
To me this is the thing that should be outlawed. Let people pay the Apple tax if they want, but don’t prevent people from making other arrangements. Most people are lazy and will pay the tax, if it isn’t excessive.
What is also totally voluntary is our decision to let Apple exist as an entitiy, to give them a government enforced monopoly over certain things, to make it illegal to break their technical protections of their monopoly etc.
When parts of a market become dominated by one or few companies operating in a limited choice environment, consumers can't just opt to not use both Apple and Play store. You need to choose one in practice.
At this point the regulators should investigate what the barriers are to new entrants and if it's too costly and nobody has managed to cut in the last few years, establishing some rules is probably a good thing. This happens as industries mature and become critical, it happened in transportation (most bus, train companies), energy, water supply, trash, etc, depending on the country and market conditions.
Not so much a failure. Rather, there is no intent for there to be a market here at all. A market relies on offerings being reproducible. Intellectual property laws are designed specifically to prevent reproduction.
Makes me think of the concept of involution in Chinese business and how they understand all of this very differently, and how difficult it is to compete because of that.
Agreed, but this is about to be a special case if it's not already. We're contending with compulsory digital IDs and cashless economies that must be used on authorized devices, and Apple is one of the two makers. While it's certainly not necessary to use Patreon, not having it or something like it is an actual barrier to individual trade. I don't think I can get behind a schema that means Apple can take whatever portion it wants from a transaction initiated on a device that it creates and that is otherwise fairly necessary for day-to-day life in the developed world.
it sounds like it does make sense because if they are making $Z profits then they are still making profits and are not non-profit.
there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.
Which it has been my observation that when someone is saying "X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits" it often coincides with saying therefore company X should be legislated on this particular profit source.
>there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.
Not in an environment where regulatory capture costs so much less than any change legislation could bring. The remedy in almost every recent monopoly case has been remarkably nothing. Politicians don’t actually want change, they want the threat of legislation so that industries bring truckloads of money to line their pockets.
Until it turns into cancer because of unrestrained growth.
Like it or not capitalism is a part of an ecosystem. We’ve been “educated” to believe that unrestrained growth in profits is what makes capitalism work, and yet day after day there are fresh examples of how our experience as consumers has gotten worse under capitalism because of the idea that profits should forever be growing.
Let's be honest if this was a European company it would be capped by law at 5-10%. Problem is who has an incentive to do the right thing here? Not apple and certainly not the US government (most of this revenue comes from outside the US).Nobody can defend it, yet nobody wishes to stop it.
The US government should absolutely do that, but they won't because they defends the interests of big companies rather than the interests of small companies or US citizens.
That's not how business works. The App Store in current form would not exist without all the collective investment that went into all of Apple's hardware, for instance.
> That's not how business works. The App Store in current form would not exist without all the collective investment that went into all of Apple's hardware, for instance.
While technically true, this argument doesn't provide any merit to the discussion. 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.
In the absence of the App Store, the creator would still have access to their patrons via mobile web and payment via the methods already provided by Patreon. The app is merely a convenience - it's a hard sell that this convenience is worth 30% of the creator's revenue through the platform.
> 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 away their other, non-iPhone-primary patrons. Notably, Patreon is forbidden by Apple from making this pricing scheme transparent and up-charging only iPhone users to keep the creator whole.
The only party with power here is Apple - and they are using it to strongarm.
> 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?).
> It cuts both ways. The app store payment disincents consuming content from iPhones (indirectly, as the iPhone-heavy creators raise their prices).
That is not remotely a balanced comparison. An iPhone has more than the purpose of consuming content from Patreon and is unlikely to affect Apple. They are still gaining in this situation.
There is no magical fairy tale being called "the market" balancing the situation here. Just a large corporation exerting control over people through rent-seeking. The only disruption happening is Apple disrupting people being fairly paid for their work so they can take a large of chunk of it instead of being happy making a profit by skimming off the top already.
also now one of the worst ide in mobile/desktop development and an embarrassment for a company of apple's size and profits
them taking more and rents from their store-related operations is hard to justify from software product-quality perspective; its like a slap in the face
I’m surprised they were surprised because operating costs should be pretty much nil. What do they do, pay a few thousand app reviewers, a few hundred software engineers? Pretty sure if they had to, they could operate App Store for a few tens of millions of dollars per year.
All of this could be solved easily if developers were allowed to pass on the apple tax to consumers and advertise discounts for not using the App Store. No one wants to pay more for nothing.
I really think I might be done with Apple. The only thing keeping me using them is how much I hate Android. The _millisecond_ a competitor arrives, I'm dropping my iPhone like a bad habit.
Off topic, but is there anything specific that you hate about Android? I find it acceptable. I'm trying to cut down my phone usage so maybe I'm more tolerant.
I'm wondering what adjectives you hope to apply to a phone operating system. I'm content with mine when I don't have to think about it, for which "acceptable" seems about right, and discontent when I do.
GrapheneOS on a Pixel is that competitor. Open source, more secure than Apple, compatible with nearly all Android apps. It's all the positive aspects of Android without the downsides (Google).
I keep hoping and wishing for a daily drivable linux phone that's compatible with all the us networks to come along. I'll keep hoping and wishing. Someday I hope we will get there!
The problem is that Apple owns the platform and half of the mobile ecosystem. You can't just launch a competitive marketplace which could compete alongside Apple's app store, nor can you launch an alternative operating system. You have to launch a whole new smartphone stack complete with operating system, app distribution and app ecosystem.
I also don't use Apple, and I try to avoid the only other alternative by using GrapheneOS instead of an official Android build.
But at some point everything is going to be so closely tied to Google as well that that way of living is also going to become too painful, and at that point "or not use Apple or Google" is a bit like saying "or not use the roads".
This. Doing business with almost any major company is unethical, but Apple sits near the top of the big tech companies people shouldn't do business with. They are not a force for good in the world.
They could lower the rates even more and still afford the government bribes and solid gold tchotchkes, but the whole point of the bribes is to not do that.
Sure, and you can buy an android phone and use the play store instead and still get charged 30%. Or you could sideload, but let’s be real 99.9% of users aren’t gonna do that, and similarly most gamers are gonna buy everything on steam.
The exceptions here prove the rule I’m afraid, if anything.
Correct, but that means that publishers are choosing to distribute via Steam, despite the existence of other options, because Steam's superior features, user base, etc. justify paying that premium. They could distribute on Epic games, or even self-distribute like how Blizzard does, but they choose Steam.
It's not analogous to iOS that has no other options for distribution.
There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.
But what are they even doing for regulators to have to step in? Making profits from someone selling their product in your market seems pretty valid to me. Are you saying this is anticompetitive to other possible app store storefronts like Google Play or something?
Just to ground the discussion in Apple's criminal behavior a bit, here's some excerpts from a 2025 ruling about Apple's behavior in this regard:
> Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up (the 2024 evidentiary hearing). To unveil Apple’s actual decision-making process, not the one tailor-made for litigation, the Court ordered production of real-time documents and ultimately held a second set of hearings in 2025.
> To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing,and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Apple’s goal: maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, other purchasing mechanisms. Apple’s response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates with full page “scare” screens, static URLs, and generic statements. Apple’s goal: to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court’s Injunction.
So, I wanted to avoid referring to this case because it undermines any discussion, but if you want to include it, the judge ruled in favor of Apple for nine out of ten claims made by Epic, including 1) Apple's 30% commission is not anticompetitive behavior, and 2) Apple has the right to not allow third-party apps on their platform. Apple, being Apple, attempted to subvert the part about allowing links to other storefronts by adding a 27% commission aas well as a scare page, which is what they are currently in hot water for. However, the overall decision was solidly in Apple's favor regarding the App Store's 30% commission and practices.
> One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive.
Epic is twisting other people's words here. Notice how they quote “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” but not the point about it being anticompetitive. It's because the decision never said that.
Why should they have to allow third parties to run apps on their platform? The fact that it is a clear security risk already gives them justification, but even looking past that, Apple is not the only platform that bars users from running third-party software or marketplaces on their products. For example, playstation, xbox, and switch all disallow running unauthorized games on their platforms. What makes Apple different?
No. This is a result of a market failure caused by monopoly power. Regulators must make sure market capitalism works.
I'm not sure what is the basis for your question but using market definition where Google Play and Apple Store are in the same market is not correct (market definition is essential part of any monopoly regulation).
Markets are defined by choice of practice, not by choice in principle.
My question is: what is the basis for asserting that this market failure is due to monopoly power? Is your argument that their excessive profits from the services provided result from anti-competitive behavior? If so, what specific anti-competitive behavior are you referring to?
The specific cited anti-competitive behaviors (from DOJ and EU Commission is) are related to violating anti-steering provisions (companies forbidden for directing towards other payments methods), tying and bundling (in-app purchase requirements), self-preferencing (obvious), "tap-to-pay" monopoly, and blocking third party app-stores.
This is all money that is reducing expenditure elsewhere. I get it: capitalism and economics. Yet I still think humanity could do better and I think capitalism itself suffers. Economics theory is broken if it thinks this is good for society in general.
I think what confuses me is that Apple is taking so much profit that it reduces their profits.
It's a classic direct-indirect management problem. Think about Android for a second. It costs nothing to put an app on their app store. People can make apps for themselves and then just publish because either "why not" or it's an easy way to distribute to friends and family. So basically it is making app creation easy. Meanwhile Apple charges you $100/yr to even put something up on the store, makes it hard to sideload, and consequently people charge for apps, which Apple rejoices as they get a 30% cut (already double dipping: profiting from devs, profiting from the devs' customers).
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMARTPHONES
A smartphone is useless without apps! People frustrated they can't find the apps they want on iPhone? They switch to Android. People on Android want to get away from Google but they can't do half the shit they want to on iPhones (and the other half costs $0.99/mo)? They bite their tongue or rage quit to Graphene.
The only reason this "fuck over the user" strategy works is because there's an effective monopoly.
All of this is incredibly idiotic as the point of a smartphone is that it is a computer that also makes phone calls. We have made a grave mistake in thinking they are anything but general purpose computers. All our conversations around them seem really silly or down right idiotic when you recognize they are general purpose computers. And surprise surprise, the result is that seeing how profitable and abusive the smartphone market can be leads to a pretty obvious result: turn your laptops and desktops into smartphone like devices. Where everything must be done through the app stores, where they lock you out of basic functionalities, where they turn the general purpose computer into a locked down for-their-purposes computer.
The thing that made the smartphone and the computer so great was the ability to write programs. The ability to do with it as you want. It's because you can't build a product for everyone. But the computer? It's an environment. You can make an environment that anyone can turn into the thing they want and they need. THAT is the magic of computers. So why are we trying to kill that magic?
It doesn't matter that 90% of people don't use it that way, and all those arguments are idiotic. Like with everything else, it is a small minority of people that move things forward. A small percentage of players account for the majority of microtransactions in videogames. A small percentage of fans buy the majority of merchandise from their favorite musicians. And in just the same way, it is a small number of computer users (i.e. "powerusers") that drive most of the innovation, find most of the bugs, and do most of the things. I mean come on, how long did it take Apple and Google to put a fucking flashlight into the OS? It was the most popular apps on both their stores for a long time before it got built in. Do you really think they're going to be able to do all the things?
Advocating for regulators to step in is already a value judgement. Why is "high profitability" a cause for regulatory scrutiny? The optimal behaviour in any ecosystem (corporate or natural) is to defend as much territory as is within your power, not to keep only to what covers your "needs". Why have you deemed this behaviour, which is emergent anywhere competition between organisms exists, as in need of regulation?
Apple is succeeding largely on merit, within the bounds of civilized, peaceful competition. Shouldn't we all just be grateful for the contributions they have made to our civilization?
What we need much, much less of in this world is government force, especially during these trying times of government force and outreach (something I expected my more left side of the isle colleagues to have finally realized by now).
COIVD really was a test of how much governmental draconianism we would take, and we failed spectacularly, and not only that, but are demanding more government.
So no, we don't need more regulation, especially given this country's history of regulatory capture. We need new solutions.
We don't need "more" government, we need the government to do its job. We need the regulators who have been legally appointed to oversee these areas to actually respond to these behaviors. Regulatory capture is the issue, but the solution isn't less government. It's getting corporate money and lobbying out of the government (Citizens United is to blame for most of our woes), increase the enforcement of anti-corruption laws, and get antitrust back on the table.
I want big corporations to be scared. I want them to fear for their own survival, and to tread lightly lest the sword of damocles fall upon them.
But what about my banking app! I think it’s only fair Apple take 30% on every transaction I make. After all they put in a huge amount of work validating and making sure my banking app is safe and functional.
Edit: Maybe I am greedy now, but it would be nice if large transactions like say buying a house only would cost me a 15% transaction fee to Apple.
Developers are a tricky market for this because they could realistically move to different platforms if stuff like this started to happen. Or at least work on remote machines.
If gaming on Macs ever became popular though this would be a real risk.
I'm not sure Claude Code is making enough for Apple to take notice & drastically alter their CLI like that? CC has 100-150k users across all platforms, paying $200-1200/yr each. Even if every developer is on the top tier Max plan, and on MacOS, that's $180mn in revenue at Anthropic. So even in the most optimistic scenario, that's only ~$50mn revenue for Apple at a 30% take.
That pales in comparison to the hardware & subscription revenues Apple brings in by being a dev-friendly OS.
Claude code reached $1B in six months in early Dec and given what I am seeing on ground, I wouldn't be surprised if just in last 2 months after that their revenue grew by double.
> Wouldn’t be surprised if macOS starts locking down CLI tools towards an App Store model too.
The day that happens is the day Apple sees a mass exodus of developers to Linux, I don't think they'd be that stupid. They enjoy enough goodwill right now as the platform of choice (vs. Windows for those that don't want to run desktop Linux), I can't imagine they'd casually just throw that away.
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/
If Claude Code was in the Mac App Store, they would have signed an agreement to do so (offer an in-app purchase option and Apple gets a 30% cut of subscriptions for the first year, 15% after that).
They would also be sandboxed such that the app wouldn't have access to the level of system integration it needs.
I would expect also that there is a broader revenue sharing agreement for both being a system-integrated search engine and "world knowledge" chatbot (Google and OpenAI being the respective defaults)
For me personally, I have used this method to spend my Apple gift cards purchased on a discount. Effectively I got a Claude subscription at 15% off. (You could argue this only works because OpenAI/Anthropic charge the same price across web/mobile, and I agree.)
So, as much as I despise Apple's business model, in some sense I have directly benefitted from it (other than stock price).
You joke, but legally they could. If game engines can charge a licence fee as a % of revenue from games developed on those engines, then legally there's not much to stop apple doing the same. Of course consumers and enterprises wouldn't tolerate it, but the barrier is commercial rather than legal.
I've long believes that the requirement to use in-app purchasing was to make such revenue sharing easier to audit - if you can only use Apple's payment system to do certain things (or else your app isn't approved), then Apple doesn't have to worry about things like audits.
Since various countries have regulated the ability to do third party payments from apps, Apple has since added API to launch said payments, to help generate statistics on use so that they can then demand third party auditing that the commissions are still being properly paid.
In the US there was a court decision that they couldn't meter or charge commission, which may very well be walked back and will lead to lots of fun future articles.
What is absurd is finding yourself paying 30% on every digital item purchased on a smartphone app. It would never even occur to us that Microsoft takes a 30% margin on Steam, yet that is what happens on webtoon apps.
Let me clarify. Microsoft did not approach Valve and say "give us 30% or else." Valve saw that Microsoft was moving in the same direction of Apple where their devices would be locked down and only run software from their store, felt threatened, and decided they couldn't remain tied to that ecosystem.
Microsoft don't really have an equivalent to iOS so let's compare oranges to oranges: macOS vs Windows.
On macOS, Apple don't take a 30% cut on Steam purchases. Steam take 30% however.
There's a big difference - when you develop an app for iOS or macOS, using Apple's APIs, platform and app store tech, it's reasonable to pay Apple something and they legally can charge.
I don't actually have an opinion on whether 30% or 15% is too much or not. It's factually wrong or illogical arguments that bother me: how can we fight anything when the arguments are just nonsensical.
Apple make plenty of user-hostile decisions, but people need to criticise them reasonably, otherwise they will be ignored by those that might have the influence to change things for the better.
> when you develop an app for iOS or macOS, using Apple's APIs, platform and app store tech, it's reasonable to pay Apple something
Is it?
We spent several decades of the PC world, MSDOS and Windows, with zero platform license fees or approvals. This was hugely beneficial for innovation, and this is why everyone hates the sudden rise of platform landlordism.
You're perfectly entitled to distribute a macOS app with your own paywall, the same as ever. Nothing has changed from that perspective.
Rent-seeking on SaaS platforms is far worse I think, e.g. $30 per month for 10GB of data in a recent offering I was looking at, and who knows where the data are. Some datacenter in a foreign land with a mad king probably.
Remember when software was sold in a box with a paper manual in a store? Before App Store and steam, retailers and publishers of games and software also took their share of the revenue from the work software developers created.
Their cut wasn’t small.
If the government stepped in to regulate the sales of software (to protect developers and consumers?) do you think:
A) apps will cost less
B) the government won’t want their cut
Yeah but there was a big difference: As a developer you could opt out of that distribution and go your own way. I knew people who sold floppies out of their garage. IBM or whoever made your hardware, and Microsoft or whoever made your OS, could not prevent your users from installing your software on their machine.
Gov't taking a cut from tha App store is already happening [1] and it's a legitimate concern unlike the concept of Apple taking cuts from people's salary (LOL).
It would likely get voided as unconscionable if they just unilaterally demanded it, but it might hold up in specific circumstances (if the user is well-aware of the salary demand when they accepted the contract, and the user gets some proportionate value out of giving Apple a percentage of salary).
If Apple can legally claim 30% of your salary then a doctor using an iPad to demonstrate results of a scan to a patient has to pay Apple 30% of their consultation fee.
> If Apple can legally claim 30% of your salary then a doctor using an iPad to demonstrate results of a scan to a patient has to pay Apple 30% of their consultation fee.
Apple could absolutely do this. They could say that professional medical use of macOS requires a commercial license, and the price of that commercial licence could be linked to revenue.
Doctors - or rather their hospital IT/procurement departments - would be held to the terms of service they agree to. Far more rigorously than ordinary consumers.
If that were legally enforcable, which is almost certainly not the case, Microsoft and Google could do the same, making your argument moot in this context.
Every software company can do this. Oracle Java is free for personal use but if you use it in prod you have to pay a licence based on the number of employees in your company. Epic games takes 5% of your revenue above a million if you use unreal for a game. Docker desktop requires a paid license if you have over 250 employees or $10 million in revenue.
Absolutely, if the taxi driver signs a contract / agrees to terms of service. What law prohibits them from charging that? This is why open source is so important.
It made sense in the early days, phone operators were charging up to 90% for the infrastucture to send an SMS, and get a download link to a J2ME/Windows CE/Pocket PC/Symbian/Palm/Blackberry download link to install the app.
So everyone raced to the iOS app store, it was only 30%, what a great deal!
The problem is that two decades later it is no longer that great deal in mobile duopoly world.
It's kind of interesting that while the structure is largely the same, the underlying behaviour/intent has morphed from a disruptor-model into being toxic rent-seeking behaviour.
Isn't it strictly worse that they're already thinking they're entitled to 30% of your salary because your clients use Apple hardware? You can change what you use, you can't change what they use.
All the regulators in the world have their sights set on them and they know it. The light is half on already and the music is slowing. This party is soon to be over. It's a last ditch attempt at milking all they can.
Stuff like this is ironic but I do think it's escape hatches like this that will make these tech companies, if they ever go down, go down kicking and screaming. Any platform holder that ever finds themselves in a bad place financially will 100% pull all the levers like this.
30% of profit from stock sales initiated on Apple hardware should automatically go to Apple. Because why not. It's a digital sale, there is no physical goods changing hands. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. /s
The wealthiest company in the world really needs that last little bit from those Patreon creators who have it way too easy in their lives. It's not as if the people that take that meager bit of cash are going to invest it in Apple stock so they're going to have to pay up.
The board could argue that it's damaging to the company's brand and long term bottom dollar to charge such usurious fees and fire the CEO for taking such a harsh stance with app developers.
Boards are not some sort of unelected shadow government that exists to depose leaders if they aren't squeezing enough blood from the stone.
Appointing a new CEO is time consuming and carries enormous market ramifications that could backfire on shareholders if it goes wrong, putting their own board seats at risk. Stability and peaceful transitions of power benefit everybody in this prisoner's dillema. A new CEO will be shopped around to the public years before they actually take power so there aren't any surprises when they do.
The CEO willing to do something like that would never find themselves in that position. One becomes a CEO through a process that filters those kinds of people out and builds the remaining into willing participants.
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.
To everything you can find exceptions, no one's arguing what you're claiming. And you have to read between the lines here, a board doesn't have to remove a CEO for a decision, what I'm trying to point out is the CEO knows their job, and the board knows their job. Just like there's things you know if you do you won't get a good pay raise or bonus (or gasp, get fired), the CEO knows how to avoid that in the long term. The board also knows what they must do over the long term to keep their nice board seat. No one has to get sued to get the message.
I’m not claiming CEOs are legally required to chase every conceivable revenue dollar or that they’d lose a lawsuit if they don’t. Corporate law doesn’t work that way, and no serious person thinks it does.
What does exist is a well-understood governance and incentive regime: boards evaluate CEOs on long-term shareholder value, compensation is tied to financial performance, and strategic restraint has to be justified in those terms. That doesn’t require lawsuits, and it doesn’t require explicit mandates. It’s how large public companies are run.
The fact that Apple could charge 50% and chooses not to doesn’t refute this — it just shows that extraction is constrained by regulation, backlash, and platform risk. But once those constraints weaken, dominant platforms reliably increase extraction. That’s an empirical pattern, not a legal theory.
Sometimes I think the 30% was supposed to be 3% originally, and no one noticed the decimal was in the wrong place when they shipped it, and then people paid it anyway, so they kept it.
30% is just so unreasonable that it would be totally understandable if someone would believe this.
In 2008, the app store was launching, and physical software was still sold at Targets, Walmarts and other large retailers. A 30% margin was roughly what retailers would make off of physical software sales. By setting the App Store to be the same, Apple was signaling to retailers that they were not trying to undercut their margin, and keep a healthy relationship with them.
The carriers were taking about 70% in tariffs and fees even without you bribing them to get better positioning. That’s why all the mobile app people rushed to Apple in the early days. They could actually turn a profit on the App Store.
If probably be retired now if I wasn’t already so burnt out on how SMS tariffs worked at the time. Utterly opaque and on a delay. They basically wrote you a check for however much they felt like each month.
Essentially the reseller arm of carriers at that time was just a money funnel from VCs to the telcos. They were eating their own young and I was full up on the bullshit.
No one was buying boxed software in 2008. The second we had broadband, call it 2002-ish, everyone was downloading everything. For many of us that began in the 90s before we had broadband. Overnight downloads over 56K phone modems was already overtaking boxed purchases. More people downloaded Netscape in 1995 than bought it boxed.
Not disagreeing with your general point, but Netscape is probably a bad example here. People who wanted Netscape would have been much more likely to know how to download and wanted to download it. Compared to, say, video editing software, which would have much less correlation with web users back in 1995 when not everyone was a web user.
It was 2008; "big box" software was largely seen as obsolete to the vast majority of developers. Marketing was done online, and the benefit of investing in retail had stopped outweighing the consequences. Online updates quickly became the norm, and service features supplanted point-of-sale business model (much like Apple's double-dip into microtransaction profits).
Apple chose 30% because they knew they weren't a retailer. You can hunt for a cheaper Diablo II copy online or at Wal-Mart, but not on iPhone.
> It was 2008; "big box" software was largely seen as obsolete to the vast majority of developers.
Well, I'm just reporting it as I understood their decision in the moment. I was working on The Sims at that time, and I assure you, retailers still mattered to us bigly.
And what you quoted is my opinion as a consumer. Blizzard got it working in 1996, Valve figured it out in 2003 - the industry was moving on.
EA was an outlier, and by the time they capitulated and started Origin it was so bad that people regret signing up for the service. GoG didn't have this issue, Valve didn't have that issue, EA did.
Steam, the Kindle Store and iTunes all had similar sales cuts since before the app store launched in 2008.
It’s egregious now but at the time it wasn’t crazy because software developers often made way less than that when going through traditional publishing routes. Plus everyone was just happy to be making money off the new platform.
2035: Apple takes 30% of my Patreon, Google matched it through their "Competitive Parity Agreement," and the EU fined them both €2 billion which they paid in 45 minutes of revenue then raised fees to 32% to cover legal costs.
The real innovation was convincing us this was inevitable.
You can be the patron of a creator and Apple in the same time! Jokes aside, this is awful...I like/use Apple products but this unacceptable, I hope everyone dodges this and pays through the website
In all seriousness, finance people see everything through the lens of margins and money primarily. Since any company's function is to deliver value to its shareholders, if allowed, bean counters will scorch the earth for it.
Ultimately, this is at odds on how Jobs approached things, i.e., money was not the end all be all.
Apple's 30% tax was introduced under Steve Jobs and there were no small business exemptions back then. Jobs died in 2011. It's time to stop extrapolating what Jobs would be doing 15 years later in 2026 if he were still around. Could be the same, could be better, could be worse.
It isn't 'You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain', it's 'You either die a hero or live long enough for people to realize you are a villain'. While it's ultimately meaningless to speculate on what the dead would do if they were living, Steve Jobs in life did have plenty of belief and made plenty of decisions that are perfectly inline with what we are seeing in 2026 and there is no particular reason to believe he would not just be up there with the worst of them.
This is outrageously wrong. Back in 2011, the pricing model for "an app in your pocket" was 99 cents. The universal pricing model of apps was a one-time fee and the pricing range was that of an mp3 roughly. 30% of that is a lot. App sales worked only in volume.
If you sold software over the internet, you had PayPal, which had a flat fee of $0.35 + 1.7% or so and if your shareware was $30, the transaction fee essentially was ~$1. Stripe had roughly the same fee when they launched. You had more traditional credit card merchants and when I inquired one in Germany back in 2010, it was more or less in the same ballpark (~10%).
In Europe, you could also just get money wired, which cost you something like 0-10 cents.
30% for payment processing were always extremely high.
Edit: The only thing where you had no other options was when you tried to sell stuff on the internet for $1, because the flat fee part of credit card processors would eat up all of that. Apple indeed helped here a little bit, because it was always 30% and no fixed part.
I was thinking about something comparable, where there is a digital storefront, payment processing, security, delivering, installing on all my devices and so on...
Steam comes to mind. They take 30% (and I think 5% for credit card or whatever).
So I do not think that "outrageously wrong" is characterizing my remarks adequately.
Steam is fundamentally different in very important ways.
Your phone is general purpose, steam is focused on a narrow band of market
The iOS store adds nothing but cost to the purchasing process, with hilariously terrible discoverability and sorting, steam makes navigating and discoverability breezy and easy
Your phone is arguably not an optional part of your life, whereas nobody ever missed an important call because they weren't on steam
Steam does not take any money from apps or companies for transactions it was not involved in. Here, and in other cases, the costs of doing business with apple extend to people who have no relationship with apple at all
It's not a "processing fee". It's an distribution/access/market fee for the captive audience that Apple has spent tens of billions developing and supporting.
If you think you can make any money selling software on the internet and paying nothing other than $0.35 + 1.7%, think again.
Yeah I heard this before, but no, it is mostly a processing fee. The reality is:
- Developers helped to make Apple the platform it is today.
- Apple had their 30% fee when the App Store was MUCH smaller. It's not like that fee came only after they had the audience.
- Apple will do zero marketing for you unless you are already successful.
- Apple doesn't earn money with the most popular free apps, but still hosts them. They could charge by traffic, by downloads, whatever, but they won't.
- Apple will charge you if you make money in the app. They will force you to use their payment processor if you want to make money.
So, it is 100% a processing fee and everything else either came later or isn't congruent with what they actually charge money for.
Just as an aside, everything here is true of Android as well, and I think the cut was higher (or there were more intermediaries taking a bit as well): I priced an app $1.47 in 2010 so I'd get about $1 on every purchase.
True, the Google cut was also 30%, but they didn't make such a fuss about "no links to website" and stuff like that. They didn't even have a review process for a long time.
Processing fees were way less than 30% before the App Store. And considering how overrun the App Store now is with junk apps there is basically no service Apple provides other than taking money.
Tim Cook is usually good at politics, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Nobody other some CNBC guests really gets too upset when they take 30% from tinder, music or mobile gaming companies. And those types of apps run by unpopular large companies make up the majority of App Store revenue.
However, newspapers and content creators are popular in a way that carries political weight. It'd be wise for Apple exempt these categories and write off the few hundred million in forgone revenue as a political expense.
For example allowing the NYT or Joe Rogan to have nice paid apps with no fees would be a much more effective use of money than the same amount in political donations.
Apple doesn't do partner exceptions (one of the complaints Epic had about working with them is that Apple wouldn't negotiate lower rates with companies, unlike the game consoles.)
They do have carve outs in the agreement, such as the 'reader' exception. Newspapers I believe also fall under the 'reader' exception.
I have suspected for a while that the 15%-after-the-first-year subscription rate drop was a carve out targeted specifically at trying to retain Netflix IAP. However, Netflix was able to operate without IAP because of the "reader" exception.
I'm running a small service, sub 150 users, no online signup kind of business, B2B. Small EU country. 95% of users ask 'do you have an mobile app?' in first 5 minutes of onboarding. Telling them how to install a PWA (and what it is and so forth) is an uphill battle. Unfortunately App Stores rule the non technical crowd.
This is not an accident. This is exactly why Apple (and Google also) have made the PWA experience bad for years. They must force users to believe their app store is the only source of programs.
To many users, an app seems to be perceived as the blessed way to access the web. While on a mobile, they are mostly a way to organize symlinks or bookmarks. Except, off course a web browser does its best to protect the user while most apps don't.
Meanwhile I continue doing the Lords work by telling kids that apps are not the internet. Hopefully, that 95% percentage will eventually decrease.
It's not users who are pushing this. It started off with just superfluous but optional apps of websites. Now every year I find there is something I used to be able to do, which I now must own a smartphone to do. And it's not just getting discounts at coffee chains, it's increasingly stuff like accessing healthcare plan benefits, or verifying my identity for banking
A few sites throw up a blocking screen to download the app, which disappears once you spoof a desktop UA. But the big problem is businesses now having no web interface at all
Very good point, though I believe it's both market push and consumer expectation.
Because we have such limited control over our devices, they effectively provide the security of a jail locking down what users can do. That is appealing from a healthcare or banking perspective because it obfuscates the client-server API and gives exact control over the UI. As a bonus, the coffee chain gets to glean lots of details from your phone that would be unavailable in a browser.
As individuals we can do little more that push back: don't let yourself be trapped by coffee chains (go to a different one) and bother your bank's service line about having to use their app. The rest is up to government intervention, I fear.
>To many users, an app seems to be perceived as the blessed way to access the web. While on a mobile, they are mostly a way to organize symlinks or bookmarks. Except, off course a web browser does its best to protect the user while most apps don't.
That is an education problem. What do school computer courses teach these days? Do schools even have computer literacy classes anymore? Do they still teach students about the internet?
This made me realize, Firefox needs to create a launcher that just creates PWAs out of bookmarks (or vice versa). That way, people get the "app feel" without needing to download every single app.
It’s about convenience in most cases; an “app” to tap on, not a URL to remember and enter or a bookmark to save, name, file, and locate.
Just like apps in general, PWAs are mostly a mobile heavy modality. Bookmarks and the browser is largely still fine on laptop/desktop, but even there you see the app design language start prevailing with things like bookmarks and “recent sites” being presented like app icons.
Even if it's not a PWA, on both iPhone and Android you can create an "app icon" that will open a URL in a chromeless window. It's as simple as tapping "Add to home" from your browser.
It's not about power users. It's about regular users and the patterns they have learned.
The mobile ecosystem was built in a way to funnel all users into apps. That's the experience that is optimized for use, that's the experience users feel safe and secure. Barriers were put in place on what apps are even allowed to do (like not having alternative app stores, or a browser in iOs that is not just a webview of Safari). This created an enviroment where developers and companies are forced to develop to this ecosystem, and pay the Apple tax, since that's where the users are. And an alternative system is impossible to be created since Apple uses it's power at the hardware and operating system level to make alternatives impossible.
And someone will probably come and say that this is all users choice to be locked down in the walled garden. That the walled garden is keeping the users safe, so therefore it is only fair that Apple gets to capture 30% of all digital economical activity.
Some things I do want to get notifications about, including from Patreon, whose notifications are perfectly fine, configurable with appropriate granularity. I don’t get any unwanted notifications there.
There may be a time where we have to push back, though, and this may be it. "There is no app" may sound terrifying now, but once we've educated users, it will only get less scary, until we might actually claim back some ownership of our own stuff from the likes of Apple.
This may just be more of a design and communications challenge for you, than your users. I have seen several design templates that use various forms of visuals to assist the user through the “add to Home Screen” process, which is just three steps; Share—-> More —-> Add to Home Screen. It Is arguably even a faster process than going through the App Store, even if users may be more familiar with it.
You could accompany it with some copy explaining how it keeps the service efficient and affordable, i.e., possible stating if you were to offer an app you would have to increase the price by 75% to pay Apple their fee and for the extra costs.
I suspect other arguments for PWAs would not really matter, like that you have no need to track them or use other abilities an app affords, etc. Most people only care about very few things engineers actually care, let alone know about.
I’ve always been an advocate of PWAs whenever it makes sense and will even design and architect to that objective. But even when I would deal with clients, I think the real “up hill battle” is that apps allow for higher fees and charges because they’re more work and come with greater expenses for for-profit apps, so there has been very little incentive to spread general user awareness about the “add to Home Screen”/PWA.
It’s a bit of a paradox, but I guess that seems to be an under-appreciated driver in something like “advanced consumer capitalist economies”, where the “rational actor” simply does not exist anymore.
What kind of users are these? Power-users or normal users (Android etc.) or dum..Apple users?
Because in my circle, power-users and beyond. Everybody is angry with apps needed for everything, you want buy bread in store, "do you have our app?" It's a meme here.
And in our local subreddit, 600k users. Sentiment is the same.
We also tried to bypass stores apps with generating new accounts and distributing QR/cards for free to everyone.
It was kinda popular.
And problems are more real with each day, eg.: scammers have their work way easier, since dumb users can take a huge loan directly from banking app in their phone.
BTW, you don't need the app store for that. You can use Firebase App Distribution which doesn't require you to go through the review process.
Basically you just ask their email address and add it to a list in Firebase. Upload your ipa to firebase and the user will receive an email with a link to download
Clients and customers will not stand for this. I don’t agree but I’ve seen it enough times now it doesn’t surprise me. They want an app, doesn’t matter if you have an identical web-based version that does the exact same thing, they want an app.
I write cross platform apps using Vue/Quasar (previous Angular/Ionic, and before that Titanium), I have put up a web-based version of their app (as a fallback and as an early MVP) and it’s like pulling teeth to get anyone to even play with it. Then you put an app up on TestFlight and suddenly they are using it.
And that’s just trying to get the to use the web while I’m still setting up crap for a “native” app. The idea of not having an app is a non-starter.
Again, I don’t agree with them, I’m just telling you what it’s like out there if you are developing software for other people. An app brings “prestige”, they want be able to say “we have an app”. And no, saving a webpage to the home screen is not a viable alternative (trust me, I’ve tried). Clients and customers reject that and there are extra limitations with that approach (or there were last time I tried, around using the camera feed, things that work fine in mobile Safari).
OK, but you sound like you consult for businesses. Who may not be rational. That doesn't necessarily mean end users are demanding an app. They could be, but your anecdote here doesn't support that conclusion. Patreon's clients are end users.
Apps are usually built so people can't skip ads. Its the only reason to have an app. Other than esoteric reasons like "we also have an app because x,y,z also have apps".
I don't think that applies to Patreon which, as far as I know, doesn't have any ads in the first place?
The app might make it easier for them to enforce DRM-like behaviors to prevent people from pirating creators content, but I strongly suspect people aren't doing that on iOS regardless.
Yep, it's the driving force why I rarely install apps. If the mobile site doesn't work well, it's a good filter that I shouldn't use it. (Doom scrolling trap).
For those that are not aware, on Android you can install Firefox and Ublock-Origin. Life saver!
Hard agree. I hate it when a website force me to get an app now. I feel like websites have matched apps in terms of feel-good on mobile that I don’t really use apps anymore
I use the Patreon app. It's great. I get to see stuff from my favorite creatives weeks (sometimes months) early, and ad-free. Since many of them are youtubers and I don't pay google to show me less ads, this is a huge value prop. And, the Patreon app can cast videos to my TV, so it's really a complete experience.
Patreon isn't something you need to be checking all the time, though, unless you patronise a LOT of people. It can pretty much be a "setup and forget" kinda deal.
Oh, fair enough — I've only known Patreon the 'open' way before. So the Patreon app is actually an exclusive publisher of some content? Do they actually market that feature?
Nearly every Patreon creator I know of has subscription tiers with exclusive content. Posts can require a minimum tier to view them, creator pages list the tiers you can join, and your feed teases you posts you could access if you joined the right tier from creators you follow.
Discussion here started on whether users check apps more often than websites and whether Patreon is the kind of platform that one might want to check often for new content.
I'm not sure how has the goalpost here moved to app-exclusivity, I understood exclusive here to mean "exclusive to Patreon" as opposed to supporting a creator that posts everything for free somewhere else, which is the use case that made that one user assume one doesn't check on Patreon often.
Also, mobile browsers easily cut out background audio so the website is nearly useless on a phone for audio posts compared to the app, as much as I'd prefer it.
They specifically said "app" which is why I interpreted it as exclusive to the app.
The other way around is a little confusing as a question because that's the primary purpose of Patreon and is mentioned on the homepage marketing (multiple payment tiers with exclusive content).
I should have probably said: "[...] exclusive content which is curated on [the creators] Patreon and [accessible to the user via the web browser or] their app."
Hope this clears things up. My main point was that there is in fact an incentive for users to check the app beyond setting up payment and forgetting about it. Even if it is not the only way such content is available, it certainly is a convenient one.
I'm willing to consider that they moved the goalpost and not you, but I still don't get how has this thread diverged.
I too got confused by oneeyedpigeon's question but I assumed from their claim about it being "setup and forget" that they simply don't know much about it.
You're half right; I just use Patreon differently, that's all. Upon reading your original comment, I remembered about the exclusive content, but that's something that's never personally interested me. I do use Patreon exclusively with a desktop browser, but I don't visit the site all that often because I tend to just subscribe to support a creator, then leave.
I think they could get pretty far with a PWA, but there are legitimate arguments to go native. For use cases like podcasts, where users can download them ahead of time, it seems like Safari limits storage to 1GB [0]. Plus playing background audio might not be as good an experience.
I use the app for its native podcast integration. The RSS URL also works but I have yet to find a decent RSS client that will synchronise progress across devices well.
Funnily enough I stopped using the Patreon app for podcasts with the big rewrite a while back where it became almost unusable and switched to Overcast instead.
Because apps are the lowest-friction path to users. If you publish a tool that targets an audience of more than a very specific niche of people, you'll get people asking for an app literally every day. My inbox used to be full of them.
That's not a reasonable solution. Have you used the Patreon app? I use it regularly on Android, and have dozens of audio podcast files downloaded through it.
It allows you to download Patreon-exclusive videos for e.g. viewing it on a flight, similar to how Youtube does it. It's literally the only reason I have it installed as an app.
I still can't believe developers love to work for this feudal overlord. They are building a wall around our profession. Have a little foresight and move your business elsewhere.
It's not so much that I love giving 30% to Apple, and more that there is no way to move your business elsewhere because Apple monopolizes mobile app distribution.
And the other half of the mobile app market is monopolized by Google who copies the pricing model while delivering even worse (if any) service to developers.
It's either getting out of mobile apps or paying up.
This is not going to change without drastic steps by regulators, which both Apple and Google fight tooth and nail.
You know some of us remember Mac System [7|8|9] and how MSFT pretty much ruled everything (Apple had low %).
We kept working on the platform and developing tools and things changed. Of course Apple is a lot more powerful than MSFT back then and the general population is their target.
When iPhone came out the sentiment was clearly opposite. The “sweet solution” was ridiculed and workarounds found. When web caught up, it was plagued with self inflicted performance issues. And eventually Apple decided to not invest in good PWA support.
I was an app advocate for a long time, now I made a PWA and it’s maybe 90% there. But you still get behaviors that you can not fix.
IMO the worst however is products that have a fully functional website, but refuse to let you use it (e.g.: Instagram)
Yes. It's improved now, but the mobile web was bad for a long time. The early days of Android experienced a "web-first" ecosystem by force, as lazy businesses just threw a webview around their site, and it was awful
Web is much better when the data should be public.
Apps are much better when any kind of data privacy is required.
The trouble is, market forces always try and push things the other way.
The Reddit App for example is totally unnecessary. It's just public web content and should be a website.
SaaS on the other hand shouldn't really be a thing at all. I have no idea why anyone thinks it's a good idea for their private data and app state to be on a cloud somewhere they don't control.
Note that this does not preclude the use of cloud services that users can control e.g. by specifiying trusted endpoints. I'm trying to build the idea of "data locality first" software. I.e. you know where your data are and where they aren't.
> Why did we let mobile go down the one-app-per-website path?
Because the web is still barely usable for anything more complex than showing a few lines of static text and an image?
Because for almost as long as (modern) mobile apps exist the web was even less usable?
Because even now you can whip up a fast complex mobile app with 60fps animations and native behaviours probably in minutes? While on the web you're lucky if you can figure out which state/animation/routing library du jour isn't broken beyond all hope?
I might be in the minority but I have a really hard time using iOS and their apps in general (I use Android).
I struggle (and mostly curse) to figure out what swipe gesture to use to get simple stuff to just work. Not super sure all the 60fps animations and wizz-bang behaviours are being used the way you think they are.
I strongly prefer apps. The thing that goes wrong here is: Duopoly bad. Competition good.
Since app distribution is not a fair market anymore, it needs to be regulated. Either the fees have to go down close to cost or alternative app stores should be allowed. And not the malicious compliance version of it (as Apple is trying in the EU).
I actually love Apple for pushing this matter this hard and sticking to its guns. This will bring in more regulatory scrutiny not just in the U.S. but in other countries as well. That will force Apple to give up (maybe in a decade or so) this practice of arbitrary rules and squeezing the last penny from others.
Thanks a lot, Eddy Cue, for all that you do to bring Apple down to its knees!
Just do what we all do to dodge this, have the Account management and purchasing abilities sit inside an embedded browser window that opens up from a button push in the app. Yes it adds a little barrier but with Apple Pay it is a very small barrier and the juice is worth the squeeze.
They don't have to "cite the Epic case", it's just functionality available to everyone now. Your app is no longer blocked from approval for including an external payment provider.
They'd actually have to do it though and that could lead to a large loss of revenue for themselves and their subscribers.
In practice I’ve seen apps just game the system by (1) using IAP using the normal flow, and (2) giving user a button unrelated to purchasing that would open a new WebView, which just happens to contain a purchase button.
I don't get it. Apple is the top 3 most valuable companies in the WORLD. THE WORLD. They act like a greedy friend that would ask you to pay back $1.54 for a meal of $1500, because you ordered a side of fries which they did not eat.
Aren't they making the majority of their money from selling hardware and iCloud subscriptions? Why they go on and milk developers, who make apps FOR THEIR ECOSYSTEM?!
$1500 represents the money you've already given them to purchase the hardware. You already overpay for that - fine - then they demand a 30% cut from $5 you're giving to a struggling independent creator. It's pure greed coming from one of the richest companies in the world.
There is a difference between paying 30% and 0.1% that goes beyond "precise maths".
It's an egregious share, and Apple is making an estimated $30 billion a year with this, at a margin perhaps more than twice as high as on iPhone sales.
They are greedy because Apple fans would by a turd in a box if it had an Apple logo.
If I was in charge of Apple I would do the same thing. In fact, I would likely increase the Apple cut to 40%. People would pay, they like their slick toys.
The developers will continue to make apps for their ecosystem regardless.
Interestingly, Patreon doesn't give creators an option of "Just don't accept donations for us from Apple users" instead, which is what my old project (SQLite Browser / DB Browser for SQLite) would have gone with if available. :(
I've instead handed the reins to others, so I don't have skin in this game any more. ;)
Apple generally frowns upon things like that. At one point they wouldn't even let you disclose in your UI that Apple was taking a 30% cut of transactions, it was against the rules to do so.
Patiently waiting for a mandatory 30% fee on every transaction made with iOS banking software. Maybe that'll put a definitive stop to forcing mobile "apps" with jailbreak detection on customers and have banks think twice before crippling the functionality of their websites.
>Which banks do you use? I’m looking to switch away from Chase (which does this).
Do you mean SMS codes or a Chase Bank App?
I have to deal with the former because I auto-delete cookies when I close tabs and use Multi-account containers on Firefox.
I've never been required to install any application (Chase branded or otherwise) on my phone in order to use the Chase website. I'll note that I've been a Chase customer since they acquired Chemical Bank in 1996.
Am I missing something important here? If so, I'd love to hear about it.
They're all going to move that way - it's sort of fundamental to PassKey. It can be done with just a laptop and their built in hardware but I suspect that since everybody has a mobile phone the UX will be built around that more often than not.
I quite like it though. At one of my banks I don't even use a password. My browser has the right material (from a prior authn) and then it pushes a validation request to my phone and with FaceID I'm in.
Within the EU, there is a law that mandates accessibility without a smartphone. The banks will sell you some proprietary dotcode scanners then which are all manufactured by the same crappy UK company (as a sidenote).
But the upside is: they work offline, and makes your 2FA app unhackable because it's not an app and instead a physically separate device.
If you're as serious about your opsec as I am, I heavily recommend to not use apps on smartphones for banking.
But Patreon does have a web version but I am not sure how many people prefer web sites in Apple ecosystem especially on Ios so I do find the whole thing to be a bit weird because this ~30% cut essentially seems to rip off of creators in some sense.
Patreon is a very niche app in the grand scheme of things. There's the saying that only 1% of web visitors ever stop by and actually contribute, and I'd expect that number to drop to 0.001% when it comes to contributing monetarily through a tool like Patreon. This is an absolutely tiny minority.
Hell I'd argue more people are upset about the lack of an OnlyFans app than Patreon. OF has way more brand-recognition (outside of tech) than Patreon.
I’d be cheering on Epic Games if they were going after Sony and Nintendo with equal fervour. Personally, I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform when it comes to the selling of games and virtual hats.
Personally I think Apple should have two pricing tiers: one for interactive entertainment, and one for everything else. For interactive entertainment, a flat 30% on everything. For everything else, Apple lowers their margin to cover transaction costs only (in the realm of 5-10%).
That's what Apple already doing: applying arbitrary categories and charging arbitrary amounts of money because "transaction costs and platform or something".
1. Where the hell is the notion of "using the platform for free" even coming from (it's coming from Apple of course). I didn't know that iPhones are free, or that dev fees are waived for everyone.
2. Why the hell can't I use a different payment processor tham Apple and tell people about it? Then I'm neither using Apple's platform "for free" nor paying Apple's transaction fees.
For interactive entertainment, I see no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.
For all other apps, I agree that alternative payment processing should be permitted for one-off transactions. And I can agree for subscriptions as well, provided the developer can meet a high standard for simple, frictionless cancellations.
> no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.
By game count and revenue, the App Store is very much a game store.
You may not think of the iPhone as a walled-garden gaming handheld with smartphone features, but that's basically what it is from a business perspective, and games are in fact the majority of apps on the system.
Epic (a game company) sued Apple to get it to charge lower platform fees than other game stores.
Liquor stores are not candy stores, yet they are allowed to sell candy to minors while being prohibited from selling liquor. The principle is straightforward: regulation should follow the product, not the venue.
> I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform
Is it a "platform" the way a console is or is it a public marketplace? I'd think the distinction comes down to size relative to the rest of the market. If I run a private club that caters to a only a few people I'm not impacting anyone else. Whereas if I run a giant chain of so called "private clubs" that in reality 50% of the town purchases their groceries from then perhaps some scrutiny by the regulator is in order.
You quoted a sentence fragment that, when read in isolation, conveys a position I emphatically reject.
To answer your question directly: I contend that when it comes to operating a marketplace for interactive entertainment, an iPhone is no different from a Nintendo Switch, and if you want to impose rules, they must be imposed equally. For all other apps, I think Epic made some valid points.
The quote was not intended to frame your position in any particular manner. Simply to provide context so it was clear what I was responding to.
I take two issues with your response.
First and foremost, the point I raised was specifically about the size of an operation relative to the overall market. You haven't addressed that. You say you see no difference but don't explain why. It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players due to having different effects on the market.
Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market that includes apps for anything and everything. Compare a 1000 sq ft mom and pop game shop to a 400k sq ft big box retailer that sells groceries, liquor, clothing, home goods, yard tools, just about everything except for literal building materials. It wouldn't be reasonable to treat them the same way.
> It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players
I agree with this in principle, but I don't think that principle applies here. Apple is not a uniquely large vendor of games. There are multiple ecosystems operating at similar orders of magnitude in games sales, at around $10B or more. Against that backdrop, portraying the App Store as some singular 400-pound gorilla with respect to games is not accurate.
> Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market
That distinction cuts the other way. A general-purpose market does not escape product-specific regulation; it applies it selectively. A store that sells liquor must comply with liquor laws when selling liquor, but selling liquor does not prohibit it from selling candy to children. It is normal and reasonable to attach rules to the product being sold, not to the fact that the venue also sells other things.
Perhaps if Apple were willing to exclude games from the App Store and move them to a newly created Game Store, it would be easier to imagine how they could be made subject to different rules. But I don't think that should be necessary for the government to impose different rules on different product categories.
To be clear, another acceptable outcome IMO is for the Epic Games argument to prevail with respect to all major gaming platforms. If they believe Apple deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on iOS, then Sony deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on Playstation.
It seems to me that you're cherry picking a product category while I am taking "mobile app market" as a whole.
I did not suggest that Apple could escape laws that apply to a given product category. Quite the opposite - that I think it is reasonable for a behemoth to be subject to _additional_ regulations that cut across _all_ product categories. That was the point of my analogy. In physical retail big box stores are subject to additional regulations that mom and pop shops are not. The fact that Walmart happens to sell games and happens not to be the largest retailer of those is not going to get them out of being treated as the giant that they are.
I don't think it matters that in any given product category Apple isn't the largest. The issue is that they are one half of what is effectively a mobile app store duopoly in most of the western world. That fact carries serious implications for developers and consumers alike. Developers in particular, regardless of product category, are effectively forced to do business with Apple. On that basis I believe that either the app stores of both Apple and Google should be subject to _extremely_ stringent regulations or alternatively that the platforms should be forcibly opened up by law (ie no more locked down devices).
I agree with stringent regulations with respect to apps other than interactive entertainment. I disagree about interactive entertainment because I don't think that moral arguments for marketplace regulation extends to video games. Especially when it comes to cross-platform games like Fortnite. Nobody is forced to make games for iOS. Epic Games were certainly not forced to do business with Apple any more than Bungie or Naughty Dog weren't.
Is this distinction you're drawing based on a categorical difference such as entertainment or art? Or is it related to the size of the vendor relative to some metric?
Given that the service operator gates access to the customers and that most customers are unlikely to switch just to do business with a particular vendor, then shouldn't policy be determined solely by the size of the service operator? Why should the type of good or size of the vendor enter into it?
In the west Apple is approximately half of mobile. That's massive. Saying a vendor isn't forced to do business with them is like saying that a vendor isn't forced to sell their products competitively. All things being equal if you publish software for mobile then you will be selling through Apple regardless of the terms they might impose.
Your remark about Bungie and Naughty Dog seems to me like saying that the local city doesn't need to tax a chain restaurant at the same rate as an independent one because it has storefronts in other cities with more favorable terms. The idea being that if they don't like the city's terms they can just close that storefront; it won't kill them due to their size and reach.
Since games also account for 70% or more of revenue, the App Store is more accurately described as a game store that also sells non-game apps, rather than a general store that also sells games.
The Game Store part of the app store could certainly stand on its own and operate with similar terms to Nintendo's eShop, Sony's PSN store, or Google Play.
Many people on HN seem to think that it's perfectly OK for Nintendo or Sony to charge a 30% platform fee for Fortnite but somehow not OK for Apple (or Google) to charge a 30% platform fee for Fortnite.
Epic wants to force Apple to lower its platform fees so that it can pay lower fees to Apple for Fortnite (technically IAP since Fortnite is "free to play") than what it pays to Sony and Nintendo (or Google for that matter) for Fortnite.
There's basically two mobile worlds in India. The middle class has mobile plans basically like the rest of the world, while the poor (especially the rural poor but also to some extent the urban poor) have a pay-per-use account that also functions as their bank. So sending a text might cost 2 rupees, and an MMS might cost 6.
1. This would not deter bad actors in any way, spammers already have no issue paying for junk mail. An 0.01 cost means nothing if the action they're taking generates more than 0.01 for them (it generally does). In fact this essentially incentivizes bad actors; you get punished for not profiting off your messages, so people would be more inclined to find ways to monetize their posts.
2. The costs for this would be ridiculous. I have probably sent over a million public messages on Discord in the decade I've been using it. $10,000 is a pretty steep fee to do some chatting.
3. This is essentially a digital ID scheme with extra steps, and requires ceding privacy completely to communicate on the internet.
I understand your comment was probably an off-hand joke and not to be taken seriously but if you think about it for very long it becomes apparent that it would actually make the problem worse.
>spammers already have no issue paying for junk mail.
Junk mail isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. And I'd be surprised if the margins for this was so high that a mere 1 cent transactions wouldn't deter so many of them.
I see it the opposite. You will never stop truly motivated propaganda from spreading its messae. They put millions into it and the goal isn't necessarily profit. But you stop a lot of low time scammers with a small cost barrier.If only because they then take a cheaper grift.
This was Bill Gates' idea with regard to a bit-tax, and goes someway to explaining why Microsoft initially didn't believe the internet would take off (and tried to push their own MSN walled garden as an alternative).
Today out of curiosity, I tried looking at what is the cost of one PVA (Pre-verified account) of google. I found it to be around ~$0.03 (3 cents) or it could be an amazon account idk or maybe an youtube account
Like my point is that atleast for amazon/yt, these bots usually cost this much ~$0.03 to buy once.
Then we probably see a scammer buy many of these accounts and then (rent it?) on their own website/telegram groups to promtoe views/ratings etc./ comment with the porn ridden bots that we saw on youtube who will copy any previous comment and paste it and so on.
So technically these still cost 3 cents & scammers are happily paying the rate.
Yeah. Iirc, I used to have to pay $0.20 per SMS message, sent and received, before unlimited plans became a thing. Also had a limited amount of minutes for phone calls.
I remember Verizon wireless at the time had a plan with unlimited nights and weekends for calls and texts, so my friends and I would message each other like crazy on the weekends when it was free. Got grounded when I got my first girlfriend in high school for racking up the phone bill from text messages and promptly got my phone taken away.
Yeah, in the early days, at least in the US, carriers used to charge for both incoming and outgoing SMS unless you had a plan that included it, usually with a limited amount of messages and they were quite expensive for the time.
This means Apple is literally going to take nearly 3x in fees from Patreon's customers than Patreon is taking from their own customers.
My understanding is that the reason the number 30% is so magical is a historical anomaly. When software was physically distributed back in the day, 15% of the MSRP was reserved for the distributor and another 15% for the retailer. When these digital marketplaces were set up, the companies just said "well, we're the distributor and the retailer, so we'll keep both". Forgetting the fact that the cost to distribute and retail the software is literally pennies on the dollar of what it used to be.
I think the irony in this case is that this is a greed problem of their own making. When Steve Jobs announced that apps on the original iPhone would only be $1-$3, he set off the first enshittification crisis in the software industry. In 2008, Bejeweled cost $19.99 if you wanted to buy it on the PC. On the iPhone it was $0.99! This artificially low anchor price is what kicked off the adoption of ad and subscription driven software models in the first place.
My understanding was that the retailer margin was 50% and the distributor margin was 10%. So Apple/Steam/etc went "half of 60% is a great deal".
Of course the retailer margin is never actually 50%. That's theoretical if 100% of product is sold at MSRP. Actual retail margins are about 25% because of sales, write-offs, et cetera.
OTOH when there's a sale in Steam, they still get their full cut (of the reduced price).
I remember writing apps for PalmOS (long time ago) distributors like PalmGear took over 60% from international developers like me, plus they held your earnings until you hit a minimum payout threshold. Add bank fees on top of that, and it was basically not worth developing for the platform. 30% felt like a godsend in comparison. (I'm not defending the Apple / Google tax)
From what I could find, it does seem that major retailers back in the day (CompUSA, Circuit City, etc) were only making 15% margin on software sales. This is much lower than other product categories - but also software didn't take up much floor space.
its agency model vs retail model. Recall - Amazon hated the agency model, where the publisher sets the price (and 30% cut goes to app store - Jobs sold this as amazing deal). Retail model the retailer sets the price, and the publisher is guaranteed the wholesale price. Amazon preferred the latter because they competed on dynamic price setting. this was so long ago we forget.
It coupled the small floor space with high prices, and an extreme overall easiness of management (low weight, resistance to small impacts, possibility of stacking, etc).
So that margin not only had to pay for small management costs, and had small opportunity costs on the floor space, but it also was divided by a large unitary price.
Had no idea about the history and the 15%/15% split but when the topic comes up I just remember how good the 30% seemed back in, what, 2008?
It made perfect sense that this shiny new iOS platform would take 30% of a cheap app to ensure that it matches the high quality of iOS. These were little productivity apps and games at the time.
This however - I just don't understand what the need is for an app at all for Patreon. Isn't this a website/platform kind of thing? Wouldn't an app just be an additional window into the Patreon platform?
What's next - 30% of my pizza price goes to Apple because I ordered it on my phone?
> What's next - 30% of my pizza price goes to Apple because I ordered it on my phone?
You joke but this already happens with places like DoorDash. They take 30% of the order from the store owner after adding their own additional fees to the order that customers pay.
Someone I know owns a pizza store and his prices are 30% higher on DoorDash but some people still pay. The big difference is it's not a monopoly. He offers regular delivery at normal store prices and 95% of his deliveries go through that.
I was working for a small software company at the time and we thought it was outrageous. We were selling our software online direct through our own web site and the cost was far lower. A few percent for credit card processing fees, and the server/bandwidth cost was inconsequential.
>This however - I just don't understand what the need is for an app at all for Patreon. Isn't this a website/platform kind of thing? Wouldn't an app just be an additional window into the Patreon platform?
That's the other part of the surrogate war happening with mobile. The web was unregulated and hard to profit off of, so Jobs took great strides to push the "there's an app for that" mentality that overtook that age. This had the nifty side effect of killing off flash, but it's clear the prospects didn't stop there. Not to mention all the other web hostile actions taken on IOS to make it only do the bare minimum required to not piss off customers.
It very much could just be a website with no reliance on IOS as a dependency. But Apple clearly doesn't want that.
>What's next - 30% of my pizza price goes to Apple because I ordered it on my phone?
I'm pretty sure Apple has discussed things exactly like this.
Their upper management really does tend to think that 30% of any monetary transaction on an Apple platform belongs to them. Too bad our government is too busy being ran by the billionaires to do anything about these abuses from billionaires.
Really hope the 2nd wave of Sherman hits these bit tech companies hard if/when this regime inevitably falls. I just hope there's something left of America when it happens.
Steve Jobs never announced a price ceiling for apps on the App Store. The well-known I Am Rich app for iPhone retailer for $999, the actual price ceiling.
30% might be fair when you have a choice of either marketing and selling your app yourself, or just using an app store to do everything for you. But when you are forced to use the app store, things get really stupid really fast.
Apple still insists that the app store "provides value" for developers. They simply can't comprehend the harsh reality that these days, for most developers, the app store isn't the godsend service that helps their app get discovered, but instead an asinine bureaucratic obstacle they have to clear, and then regularly attend to, to have an iOS app at all.
The Mac app store, being optional for developers, is a good example of how much people actually want something like this.
> Apple still insists that the app store "provides value" for developers. They simply can't comprehend the harsh reality that these days, for most developers, the app store isn't the godsend service that helps their app get discovered, but instead an asinine bureaucratic obstacle they have to clear, and then regularly attend to, to have an iOS app at all.
Oh, no, they can comprehend, they just don't care. Apple controls access to a valuable pool of business, and they are going to extract as much value as possible from people wanting access to that pool. And, of course, they are going to try to burnish it with marketing speak, but that doesn't mean they believe their own marketing.
At the end of the day Apple is doing their damnedest to force the requirement to support other app stores. They want their cake, and they want to eat it too. Unfortunately they are going to make an epic fuckton of money before they get told to stop.
True but people need to understand there is a wide public acceptance on this issue. No one likes big tech fleecing both users and businesses alike, people want action. If you aren't collectively organizing to exert toward this action how do you honestly expect things to get better? Because the opposition has no issue throwing hundreds of millions behind a super pac to enact the law as they see fit.
It doesn't have to be like this.
Also, contrary to current political environments, Congress is more than capable of doing multiple things as once.
Tech companies are involved in lobbying, so maybe it's not as irrelevant or unconnected as you might think. Fees are how they make the money that goes into it.
Why would you want to give the government such power? That always amazes me... when there is an issue, people jump on "let's vote for government to regulate this", but then they are surprised when a new government gets to power and uses this new regulation/capability against you.
>Why would you want to give the government such power?
Because the government is the only body equipped to create and enforce consumer rights laws. Do you think we'd have refund policies if the government didn't regulate them?
>then they are surprised when a new government gets to power and uses this new regulation/capability against you.
Okay. How is the act of forbidding platforms from banning alternative payment processors going to backfire?
I want them to use antitrust regulation against everyone, including me. That's what having values is like.
Markets without competition degenerate. Markets are also artificial and always rely on government enforcement to exist - Apple sues people who try to get around its market manipulation. You just prefer that governments help enforce trusts and destroy competition that those trusts denote as unfair.
> Markets are also artificial and always rely on government enforcement to exist - Apple sues people who try to get around its market manipulation.
Historically, markets are destroyed by government interference, not propped up by it. Your own example is a case in point: were it not for the government making laws in favor of entrenched companies, Apple couldn't sue the people trying to get around its market manipulation.
> You just prefer that governments help enforce trusts and destroy competition that those trusts denote as unfair.
This is a grossly unfair mischaracterization of the post you are replying to. Bad show, old chap.
My (user) solution would be to use Patreon on the web, or on Android. No one is forcing you to use specifically the native Apple app.
On top of that Patreon is a closed centralized platform that's bound to have issues like this and that's where I very much prefer using protocols (vs platforms) that enable the same. There are very similar solutions to Patreon, but based on nostr and related protocols.
What is your solution to the government that you may not like using previously established "regulations" against people? My point is that you ask for regulation hoping that it will prevent this type of issue, but the regulation that you actually get will be barely having any effect and it will enforce ID + picture verification, it will enforce downloading specific government sanctioned keylogger app, it will enforce specific US state association, etc. New systems, new complexity, harder for newcomers to start business... Things like this are always added in the fine print. It will just lead to excluding so many people from using the service and making the overall space so much worse. That's why I'm encouraging people to think twice before immediately asking the government to expand its overreach via new regulations.
> On top of that Patreon is a closed centralized platform that's bound to have issues like this and that's where I very much prefer using protocols (vs platforms) that enable the same. There are very similar solutions to Patreon, but based on nostr and related protocols.
The problem here isn't that Patreon is centralized, but that the app store is. Apple could easily require a cut from any app using nostr and related protocols. Or simply ban them altogether.
Not saying government mandates are ideal, but I don't see any other way to force some sense into Apple (or Google). App stores should be some sort of independent institutions (non-profits) but companies have no incentive to cede that revenue. Until that happens, best not download from app stores unless absolutely necessary.
> My point is that you ask for regulation hoping that it will prevent this type of issue, but the regulation that you actually get will be barely having any effect and it will enforce ID + picture verification, it will enforce downloading specific government sanctioned keylogger app,
This is nonsense. Yes bad regulation is bad regulation, that's not an argument against regulation but an argument against bad regulation. Not all regulation is bad regulation - in fact most of it is good regulation. I enjoy not drinking feces for example but I'd love to hear your thoughts on how regulation against poopy drinking water is going to be turned against me.
> New systems, new complexity, harder for newcomers to start business... Things like this are always added in the fine print.
Good regulation recognizes that small businesses don't have the same ability to comply with complex requirements, so it creates exceptions for small business or relaxes requirements.
By all means, please advocate for good regulation and call out bad regulation, but pretending that regulation is unnecessary or inherently harmful only serves the interest of capital at everyone else's expense.
> I enjoy not drinking feces for example but I'd love to hear your thoughts on how regulation against poopy drinking water is going to be turned against me.
you can't interfere or comment effectively on the policies or processes of your water treatment plant. on the Patreon case the user can simply stop using Apple hardware or move to the web
throwing every problem down to the goverment feels like: i believe in animal rights so instead of going vegan i'll protest to the goverment make it illegal to kill sentient animals for products.
i know we can do both but OP's anarchy solutions feels much more reasonable than expecting the goverment solve stuff. creating a culture that uses de-centralized approaches is times better than sticking to a centralized platform, regulated or not
> you can't interfere or comment effectively on the policies or processes of your water treatment plant
Of course you can! You can simply install a well, a water filtration/RO system to make poopy water drinkable, or move to a different town that better suits your water quality needs. You always have the option of taking matters into your own hands and the point of having a government is so that you don't have to, in the interest of boosting quality of life and productivity.
> throwing every problem down to the goverment feels like: i believe in animal rights so instead of going vegan i'll protest to the goverment make it illegal to kill sentient animals for products.
Yes - obviously? That's how "rights" work, what separates them from "personal beliefs" is existence of a law that prohibits (or stipulates) certain actions from other people.
If I say that murder is cruel and harmful to other people, is your suggestion that I simply abstain from murder instead of demanding legislation that prohibits it?
That is the user's solution. Patreon (the company having trouble with Apple) is not in the position to get ~50% of it's users to use a different phone.
Apple should not be allowed to be in the middle of business and half the users of the world.
And yes, that is very much something that governments have regulated for decades. In fact it's basically why anti-trust was invented. Train companies and deals with Standard Oil meant together they controlled the market since if you didn't go through them you couldn't ship your product.
Android is actively in the process of trying to kill off the ability to install your own software that is not Google-approved, so this is temporary solution at best.
That's only a solution until Google does the same. And then we're stuck. What do we do when the two largest phone platforms perform this stuff? Go off the grid instead of talking to our representatives?
My understanding was that you could have a button that could take the user outside of the app to pay (i.e. your website). So progress, but not this level of freedom yet.
This is also a political issue. The administration could have ftc investigate this under anti-trust, and the government could also pass tighter laws preventing this. But this current administration is likely too friendly to big corporate interests.
Use Android or use websites instead of apps. Apple pushes their app ecosystem so hard because it's their walled garden. If you want to support a creator, go their website and click whatever they offer.
Hardware. Mass manufacturing, plus the deep pockets of a corporation, mean that we've come to expect cheap prices for inanely powerful hardware. Yes I'm calling an $1,800 iphone cheap for what you get. That's cheap for what you get because if you're a tiny company, you can't get a phone of that level manufactured that you can still for anywhere near that price, and that's a super high end model. How many people are going to shell out $1,000 for a model with the specs of a $500 model just because it runs Linux? And that's before you even actually deal with the software. Specifically, driver support, battery life, and app support are the three big show stoppers there. The best option this second is a Pixel running GrapheneOS, and that's based on Android on Goolge hardware. (They did just announce getting off Pixels tho.)
A Linux smartphone has been tried before. That's not too say someone shouldn't try again, but just to say there are lessons to be learned from those attempts.
Yeah, that makes sense on the hardware end. It's really hard to compete and even some large players like LG ultimately fell out because of that.
But I was more speaking on the software end. You can certainly piss off Google if enough people decided to buy an android phone but have it boot up Linux instead. Might even piss off Samsung, so that's a plus. I assume the infrastructure to get APK support on Linux is a herculean task, though (that's the only way I see as a middleground until native linux apps work on mobile).
> How many people are going to shell out $1,000 for a model with the specs of a $500 model just because it runs Linux? And that's before you even actually deal with the software
Thanks for writing this comment because that's exactly something which I wanted to convey with my original comment too
GrapheneOS is already a viable de-Googled and significantly hardened and improved fork of AOSP. It runs on Google Pixels at present, with an OEM device planned for release in 2027.
I guess yeah, Most of my concerns were with Privacy but yea looks like grapheneos is a tradeoff I might have to make some day
but honestly its also the fact that I love cli tools and yea I can and I have used termux in the past but I really wish for a more first class for cli tools as well and I don't know but I just really wish to support linux tools.
Like I am just not satisfied with the current options we have right now and you can look at fragmede's comment as to why I mean that. I mean I just want a cheap affordable linux phone with just decent specs nothing too fancy. By decent I mean that I used to be on a dumb phone for a year with 32 mb ram iirc so perhaps my specs can be considered to be minimal but I feel like 2-4GB ram might be a good start. (prefer the 4gb option as to favour both me anad the masses)
Can framework or some other company go ahead and create a linux phone too please?
As one who previously had a PinePhone and really tried to make it work, I share the sentiment.
One problem is by the time you've modified the Linux kernel enough to suit it, and built the phone UI and broader software ecosystem around it, at some point you're just reinventing AOSP.
I'm hoping Debian on Android gets more mature, and works better on GrapheneOS.
Your best bet in the near term may be a used a-series Pixel with GOS on it. An old under-spec'd Pixel on sale was my entry point to GOS and contrary to my PinePhone experience, I knew instantly that was going to be the device for me for the coming years, and ended up upgrading a year later to a newer device.
It is more clunky and less polished than android. On the other hand, it is far more secure.
I was a user of android for 15+ years, and I had been using a pixel 4a when the battery issue came up last year. Google handled that so terribly I bought a used pixel 7a and installed Graphene.
Installation is quite easy. The lack of native voice-to-text was a pain; I installed a 3rd party utility (FUTO) for that, but unlike the native one where it translates while you talk, FUTO waits for you to finish then translates everything.
The messaging app is less integrated too. Android finally fixed things up with Apple such that emoji responses (heart, thumbs up, +1, etc) would appear as an annotation after the text message I sent, but now I'm back to getting "So and so likes your comment <full text of my comment>".
Some of the other pain was because I have tried to cut down on other google properties. I use "here we go" for mapping instead of google maps. Due to the scale of things, the real time traffic updates on google maps is far better than on here we go. I use fastmail instead of gmail and I'm 100% happy with that solution.
Well. I own an iPhone, a Macbook, Airpods, Apple Watch. I'm in the Apple ecosystem since the last 16 years.
Unfortunately, due to their behavior in the latest years, I'm not going to buy anything Apple anymore.
Fortunately for me, I prefer Linux to MacOS so I never have been totally tied in the Apple ecosystem and I know how to leave the boat without a lot of hassle.
I'm really saddened because they know how to make great products when they want to. It's just infuriating that everything that is shitty in their products is never due to randomness or bugs or whatever, but ALWAYS because they decided to fuck you.
Question for the indie developers here; do you get more paying users from Apple devices?
I’ve never even considered publishing apps for other platforms as my gut tells me juice wouldn’t be worth the squeeze. Or to put it another way, I would prefer customers who already proved they have deep(er) pockets and are price insensitive.
Yes, I have the same app on iOS and Android, and for a long time it brought in half the revenue on Android for twice the effort (really messy SDK combined with too many OS versions and devices). Lately the gap has been closing, but it's still roughly 40% Android and 60% iOS, though I have slightly more installs on iOS.
The amount of people defending this because it's apple in here is astounding. This is possibly the least consumer friendly thing apple has done in a while, and that's saying something.
To keep their growth rates going, these mega companies soon need to swallow the whole country’s GDP. I really wonder where this is going. They can’t keep growing at some point.
This might become technocracy at some point, if the corporations become stronger than the state govs. In that case, the entire NOAM region will become a so-called technate, ruled by a form of ToS. I'd say, technocracy is way worse than even autocracy.
I think you may have fundamentally misunderstood what a technocracy is: it has nothing to do with tech companies whatsoever. From literally the article that you have linked:
> The technocracy movement proposed replacing partisan politicians and business people with scientists and engineers who had the technical expertise to manage the economy.
Technocracy is probably not the right word for what you mean. Oligarchy is probably a better one. This will probably evolve into idiocracy if you have seen the similarly named documentary .
And this is a big part of why I don't own an iOS device, and likely won't be purchasing another laptop from them, despite liking the hardware generally.
Not that I like Google much more re: Android and locking down side-loading more than before.
I was considering GrapheneOS when I bought my latest phone 2 years ago, but decided to stay with Android in the end. It has become very clear to me that I made the wrong choice.
I’m surprised at the comments here. Why should the government set the “right” margin?
If you cap the margin, you’re entrenching the monopoly forever. Allow them to charge what they want, and set tax rates on corporations commensurate with the size of their profits. Make it easier for competitors to start.
The path to a sustainable marketplace does not come from top down enforcement of margins. It comes from competition
> Why should the government set the “right” margin?
For monopolies, that is the least bad option. What would be way better, though, is mandating an end to that monopoly by allowing all users to install any apps they want on their iPhones without needing Apple's permission in any way, shape, or form.
You’re permanently entrenching them as the winner, and reducing the incentive for a competitor to emerge. The cost of developing these platforms is high and clearly it’s hard enough to compete, why would you kneecap future competitors from the get go?
And competition comes from creating a competitive market. Rent seeking behaviour is not new. This is monopolistic behaviour that should be regulated. I agree that capping fees is not solving the crux of the problem though.
While its true that creators often share "extras" in return for support, it's crazy to call the support itself a "digital good." I can only assume they mean it is digitally good for their business.
I don't understand, doesn't the market solve these issues? Here's what I figure would happen:
1. App creators will pass the extra cost over to the iPhone users.
2. Android (and other platforms that can host smartphone apps) will be more competitive and start to look better for both app creators and consumers.
Sure, there's a bit of a context switching cost. Not everyone will just be able to automatically change over to an Android phone tomorrow. But it doesn't need to happen all at once. These phones get updated and replaced every 1-2 years. If iOS users see their app store prices rising too high, and they aren't OK with this, then they will switch to Android eventually, once it's worth it.
Otherwise, I don't see any problem with Apple reaping the benefit of their powerful and well-built walled garden ecosystem.
> If iOS users see their app store prices rising too high, and they aren't OK with this, then they will switch to Android eventually, once it's worth it.
Or they'll stop buying as many apps, or stop supporting people on Patreon.
There is a lot of stickiness associated with apple products. Be it their walled gardens or having better hardware or brand recognition. This is especially true in the American market
I’ve heard it said that monopolies aren’t a flaw of the system—they’re its product. What else could perpetual, cutthroat competition lead to? This isn’t an unintended consequence. In every new era, even when an industry is disrupted or reinvented, a small number of dominant companies work aggressively to prevent real upheaval—by acquiring smaller competitors, engaging in regulatory capture, and shaping the rules in their favor. Historically, governments have often served the interests of their corporate patrons. The system itself is built for maximal extraction, and there is no “invisible hand” waiting in the wings to protect consumers. There are no evil and good CEOs, just cogs in this machine doing what they're incentivized to do, accumulate.
There is no monopoly here though. Android makes up a pretty substantial proportion of users. That users continue to use Apple devices despite this kind of greed (and that people on HN cheered when Apple defeated Epic in court) shows that users don't care, which is unfortunate.
Apple also includes a web browser on iOS, but forces every other browser you can install to use their browser engine. It's one of the many reasons they are being sued by the DOJ for anti-competitive practices.
Apple also sits on a board that approves new web technologies for standards formalization, so they can squash adoption of anything that might make web browser APIs as capable as a native application, so that they can force people to make native apps where they can extract a percentage from it (they can't do that with a web application). Rather than work out reasonable ways to support things other browsers allow, they just say "no thanks" and then there is no standard allowed to move forward.
It's extremely abusive and anti-competitive. I hope the DOJ continues to pursue litigation against Apple for this and many other things.
I believe he'd be doing that regardless of the DOJ suit. Tariffs are another issue he is dealing with. Apple likes money, and will do practically anything to secure more of it.
IE was not just used to break the internet. It also had advantages. It supported features other browsers didn't.
Without IE, we wouldn't have had XMLHttpRequest, which means we wouldn't have had Gmail, which means we wouldn't have seen the bloom of "web 2.0" websites.
As for Java, Microsoft's C# is way ahead of Java in terms of language features. No idea how the runtime performance compares these days (both are very fast), but I'd rather have Microsoft Java than Oracle Java.
Microsoft's intent was always to break the competition, but they did it by offering features others wouldn't or couldn't. Evil Microsoft's Windows was the most feature-packed operating system out there because they threw every possible feature at the wall, kept what sticked front and center, and bothered to maintain what didn't stick. Microsoft Agents, the shitty Clippy things, were supported well into the Windows 7 era despite dying out the moment Bonzi Buddy was found out to be malicious. But Microsoft dared to break backwards compatibility with .NET 1 to fix the typing problem with generics that Java has to this very day; they just ended up supporting both, side by side.
I have a theory that they've actually succeeded with the latter too. I mean, look at Java now, and look how many mini-Javas (all those JIT-compiled languages and their runtimes) have emerged since. The point of Java was to unify, we've got more division than ever instead.
The point of Java was write-once, run everywhere, and that is perfectly viable these days. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is a Java programmer, and I don't think there is really any reason to suppose that unifying on a single programming language would be desirable for developers. IMO, Javascript already shows the dangers of over-unification; you get an ecosystem so full of packages that a significant portion of the language's developers are only capable of developing by stacking 1000 packages on top of each other, with no ability to write their own code and accordingly no ability to optimize or secure their programs according to the bespoke needs of the project rather than using general purpose off-the-shelf libraries.
I can quickly think of problems we have to deal with trying to make a real cross-platform application, or worse, a cross-language interface to a system/library, but not many that would stem from having a single dominant (non-stagnant or proprietary) language.
The overuse of dependencies is a problem, sure, but it's completely unrelated to "over-unification". Every ecosystem with a built-in package manager suffers from this, be it Node.js, Python, or Rust, to name a few. In fact, it's not even the package manager, it's the ease in adding new dependencies. Go demonstrates that pretty well.
> a significant portion of the language's developers are only capable of developing by stacking 1000 packages on top of each other, with no ability to write their own code
That's because those devs are incompetent, not because there are a ton of packages.
I believe one enables the other. If the package ecosystem wasn't oversaturated to the degree it is, they wouldn't be able to masquerade as developers and publish anything. But because there is a Javascript component for everything, they can do enough of an impression of a developer to ship things and get hired without ever learning how to actually program.
If you mention Java, I think you may only incite more nostalgia for the monopolies of yesteryear. Was Microsoft's approach to Java evil and ill-intentioned, yes, absolutely. But it eventually resulted in .NET and C#, so I'd say that particular battle was a net benefit to humanity in the end. .NET is even truly cross-platform now, and open-source. Meanwhile Apple achieves interesting technical advances with their new hardware but I will never benefit from the existence of it because I will not use hardware that is locked to a prison OS.
For some reason I am assuming that they are talking about dot net web servers with the servers running windows (though I can be wrong and I am a little confused by what they mean break the internet as well in this context as well)
It gets real depressing when you compare the recent case of Google to what was done to AT&T in the 80s.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but it feels like over the past couple of decades we've gone from clever guys coming together with an idea and starting companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple, to celebrating buyouts of startups by large behemoths—that's how low the definition of success has dropped. Is competition law even a thing anymore?
It is, but the problem is that no one is enforcing the laws both old and new. That is why the elites hated Lina Khan, she was simply enforcing laws already on the books.
Wait a minute, there is a payment surface you can build in iOS(e.g. iirc a stripe demo video from the epic ruling last year), where one can pay outside the apple in-app payment method. The surface could specifically get you to your own web view(i.e. your own domain or stripe's surface) for payments. The bigger idea, I thought, would not let apple figure out a company's take was, to ask them to pay up.
How does this shakedown work for companies/orgs that have large number of paying iOS DAUs?
Apple is doing to creators what the recording industry did to musicians. Enjoy what's left of the Golden Age of Patreon content because greed is going to suffocate it out of existence.
> "According to TechCrunch, only 4% of Patreon creators are still using the platform's legacy billing system, with the rest having already switched over."
This is actually against their App Store rules, and likewise the article has the following bit:
> Patreon gives creators the option to either increase their prices in the iOS app only, [...]
it would totally not fly with Apple. They don't let this 30% commission to be visible by users, just like every other company that does such commissions. You don't see that the creator only gets about half of your donation on YouTube or Twitch, you never see that Visa takes 1% of your payment in a store, etc. Even governments do that. I don't see the value of VAT in the price of goods in stores. The US sales tax is an exception.
A lot of people would complain about how high those fees (or taxes) are if they saw them spelled out for them.
I really don’t understand this attitude. Of course it will. If enough people do it. This is how corporations change not through protest and we’re certainly not going to get any antimonopoly anything going on soon.
They make literally about 40% of their profit off of Apple services. Do you really think if people on mass stopped buying Apple TV, Apple Pay, Apple Music, an iCloud, they wouldn’t care?
I mean the minute people started talking a general worker strike in Minneapolis all of a sudden all these companies freaked our and wrote a letter protesting about IVE’s behavior in Minneapolis.
It's not an attitude, it's an observation. Corporations almost never change their behaviors because of protests and people bitching about them. It's one of the least effective ways of implementing change, especially when said company holds a locked in/monopoly position.
The thing is the end consumer is mostly hidden from the problems of Apples over charging, it deeply affects the companies selling services on the Apple platforms. What would affect Apple far more is not consumers not buying, but a huge part of the people offering on Apples market pulling out. But, Apple has that game rigged to. Particular suppliers get special deals with far lower costs. The competitors to those suppliers are now screwed. Apple will not offer them lower costs (again, Apple hides these contracts until they eventually get disclosed in court), every other company ends up paying a huge Apple tax because pulling out hand the competitor a huge market.
Honestly I'm fine with Apple charging whatever it wants for on its store. I am not fine with Apple selling you what should be a general purpose device and saying only its store can be used. Competitive stores on the device would quickly break Apple of it's monopoly behavior.
Having a boycott against you is like being hated. Firms spend enormous sums on advertisements.
Even a tiny group boycotting you has a substantial influence on your popularity-- they will tell their friends, etc. and will lead to reduced popularity.
It is not completely wrong. It's situational. The attention span of the general public is short, exceptionally short when it's about something that doesn't directly affect the general public too.
General public: "OMG, I should boycott Apple because they are making some other businesses life hard, why?"
It's a very hard sale because all the general public sees is Apple phones are easy to use and friendly. Attempting to explain the complexities that occur in the background gives Apple power in the narrative that they are doing everything to keep you "safe".
>Corporations almost never change their behaviors because of protests and people bitching about them.
Yes, because protests almost never reach critical mass when talking on the scale of a billionaire conglomerate.
The 3% rule is at effect here. if Apple made 200 billion last quarter (I don't know the exact numbers), we'd need at least 6 billion dollars worth of damage to make them listen, and make it clear it's because of this.
Even if the average IOS spender spent 1000/month (averaging in some super whales), we'd need 6 million users to stop spending for this to start having an effect. Can we get 6 million users to do that? I don't think so, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
>The thing is the end consumer is mostly hidden from the problems of Apples over charging, it deeply affects the companies selling services on the Apple platforms.
Yes. But that isn't proof that protests don't work. It's proof that people are ignorant to these situations. Making them aware is the hardest part in all this, and I'm sure corporations know this.
>every other company ends up paying a huge Apple tax because pulling out hand the competitor a huge market.
Companies work too, but we have even less coordination on this. And their incentives match Apple's. Patreon proper does not actually get directly impacted by this unless a bunch of creators pull out.
But the rare chances companies do push back, it works quickly. Just look at the Unity situation a few years back for a modern example.
My impression is that Apple as a corporation is really sensitive to their public image. I happen to believe that some corporations are actually highly sensitive to dollar losses but I also think what Apple worries about is a kind of downstream effects of brand image being lost.
I don't think that's all it would take but I kind of see Apple worrying that their products will start to be like fur in the 1980s or something... something that gradually fades and loses its brand value.
I guess in the end I sort of agree with the OP that boycotts can work and fretting about numbers initially leads to this kind of chicken and egg problem. If you try it it might work, if you try it repeatedly it's more likely to work, but if you never try it will never work.
I do think it will work. I also think most people won't even know this is a thing, and that many who do know won't be clamoring to ditch their tech anytime soon. I never owned an apple service, so I'm just paying lip service if I say I'm "boycotting apple". I can't do much more on my front as a customer.
I can do a bit more as a voter, but not in this current administration. It's sadly not even a top 10 pressing issue compared to what BS is going on right now. But I won't forget this.
>I mean the minute people started talking a general worker strike in Minneapolis all of a sudden all these companies freaked our and wrote a letter protesting about IVE’s behavior in Minneapolis.
Yes. And it took not one, but two blatant murders on the street to do that. Tech is much more ephemeral in its evils.
I refuse the purchase any apple products (I was never a fan and don't like paying premium for a walled garden) but it's impossible to offer an app if you don't also make one for apple devices.
There is no way around it especially in an apple dense market like Switzerland.
They have a clear monopoly and together with Google a duopoly.
I can thankfully continue with my refusal to purchase from HP perfectly fine.
If a fan starts a $10/mo Patreon membership inside the iOS app, Apple's subscription terms imply $3/mo goes to Apple for the first year (then $1.50/mo after), and Patreon's platform fee still applies on top. Patreon says Apple is also forcing the remaining ~4% of creators using legacy billing to migrate to subscription billing by Nov 1, 2026 or risk the app being pulled. That's a meaningful hit to creator economics for something that's closer to "patronage" than a typical in-app digital good.
I don't pay attention to all of Apples behaviors (still running an iphone 11) but this feels quite rent-seeky and creator hostile.
> According to TechCrunch, only 4% of Patreon creators are still using the platform's legacy billing system, with the rest having already switched over.
I've never used the Patreon app even once -- those creators I support, I set it up on the website.
> But from past threads in a Linux Forum, seems this only applies to people using the Apple IOS App for Patreon. Not sure if using Apple Laptops. But if you use Patreon's WEB Site directly, the fee cannot be collected by Apple.
Moreover, the fee only applies to the subscriptions made using Apple's payment system. That being said, in most jurisdictions their payment system is the only one developers can use in an app. IMHO, this is the real problem.
Yep, the tax comes from using the Patreon's in-app purchase system. Using a browser on an iPhone/iPad or any other device will not be taxed. Seen many creators putting in their bios suggesting people use the browser instead of the in app purchase.
Patreon fought this for a while but Apple has all the leverage unfortunately.
I can’t remember being more enraged than when I learned my YouTube premium was more expensive per month than it needed to be because I had signed up on iPhone, so many people wasting money every month, and YouTube isn’t allowed to mention the option to pay on web
If they weren’t a public company, you’d think they were the mob. I’ll never trust the Apple ecosystem ever again
With this logic, one should pay Google for making purchases in their browser or Netflix should pay e.g. Samsung a fee, as users consume content on their devices. Truly ridiculous.
The regulator must step in now and allow installing applications outside of the AppStore! We are witnessing in real-time what a monopoly and a walled garden leads to.
I'm not betting the US to do this right now. But look at the EU... Alternative app stores are allowed (forced by EU regulations), and it already lead to lower fees.
The vast majority of people will continue find and install (and pay for) stuff via the AppStore.
Let this be a cautionary tale for Google's plans with Android (developer verification, etc).
Why can't Patreon hike up prices in their iPhone app?
It would not only shift the cost to the user, it makes them cover the 30%, while discouraging the use of the iPhone app itself.
They could add a banner before the payment is processed that says "you could be paying less for the same benefit to the patron if you pay from our website. The price is higher here because of Apple, and you're covering the fee."
So the company that also lets you support your favorite podcasts via a subscription decided their competitor should pay 30% more just to do the same thing? Cool.
Jack up every Apple user's monthly payment by 30%.
When they go into the app to figure out what the hell happened, they will find big red text saying "want to avoid the Apple tax? re-subscribe through our website! (Link)"
They click the link, it opens a webpage where all the payment info has been auto-filled. They click "ok." Bam, fee gone.
Can someone explain how much of value the iOS app is to users? I'm a noob at Patreon, aren't creators receiving their support through the website's payment gateway already? I'm not really against a company setting the rules if it's their platform, if the market cannot accept it then alternatives (competitors) will eventually find new ways.
> Patreon gives creators the option to either increase their prices in the iOS app only, or absorb the fee themselves, keeping prices the same across platforms.
I'm curious what percentage of creators chose which
Tech companies are pushing their clients step by step out of new devices, platforms, subscription services, SaaS, ...
Governments are pushing citizens step by step into Tech to control and tax their lives.
At the end we, as simple humans, are always in the middle.
For those who, like me, are looking to break free from Apple but were tied to it through photo storage in iCloud, here's a first step towards independence: Immich! I self-host an instance for my whole family, and it works like a charm.
This was a great reminder to me that I needed to cancel every subscription I have tied to my Apple account. I'll give it to them though, they do make it very easy - I just cancelled all 10 of them in 10 seconds.
Isn't Patreon effectively a sort of payment processor? So how is this different from Apple demanding a 30% cut of transactions conducted by (for example) Paypal? (Assuming Paypal has an iOS app ofc, I have no idea.)
Good point. That makes them a combined platform and payment processor. So it seems to me the logical question would be, shouldn't they just break the platform part out then? But isn't that exactly what their percentage fee amounts to? So Apple should be entitled to 30% of their (IIRC) 5%, right?
Really they ought to further split that out into "processing fee" and "platform services fee" and Apple would then be entitled to 30% of the latter.
Yeah. I get charging for hosting an app in your store, that requires work to build the ecosystem and security and stuff. But you have to draw the line on a platform and ecosystem and vetting that someone else has done. What did apple do to build kindles library of books? What did apple do to attract creators that patreon's users would like to support? Nothing. They should get 30% for installing paid apps that they are vetting and hosting, but nothing for things third parties are hosting and vetting
I assume this is only for purchases made using the app, right?
Otherwise it just wouldn't make sense. Google gets a cut of all revenue, Apple gets a cut of all revenue, x, y, z, ... there would be nothing left over.
if many people subscribe via ios then obviously apple is bringing creators more paying subscribers no so seems kinda fair to charge for access to that ecosystem?
Until there will be a broad regulation that enforce any general purpose computing device to allow installing non-provisioned apps, we'll be in those situations.
Does this apply to creators that aren't even in the Apple ecosystem or is it only for the patreons paying through the iOS app? What if everyone moved to the website?
This is counterproductive. The only alternative to letting Apple exploit you is letting Google exploit you. There are differences, Google is somewhat better on this specific point, but there's enough things Google is worse at (such as privacy) that choosing Google isn't exactly without downsides.
Your mindset results in Apple users thinking "the problem is those stupid Android idiots who accept being in an ad tech company's spyware garden" and Android users thinking "the problem is those stupid Apple idiots who accept that 30% of literally everything they do goes to Apple". In reality, we have a common enemy in the big tech duopoly and extremely lacklustre regulation which lets them keep doing this shit. You calling me an idiot for making a different shitty trade-off than you helps nobody.
> This is counterproductive. The only alternative to letting Apple exploit you is letting Google exploit you.
Or allowing users to control their hardware and software and give them the freedom to install the hell they want on it?
We've been using computers for eternities where we still have the possibility, yet, as soon as it is about phones then "no way, we protecting you from bad actors".
Give me a break, you want to help protect me from bad actors implement proper software/hardware jails/containers for third party software and that's it.
As a user, I can not allow users to control their hardware. It is not up to me. I get to choose between Apple and Google, and neither is in the business of allowing users to control their hardware.
You do have an alternative to both Google and Apple, which gives you the best of both worlds - it's called the Sailfish mobile OS - https://sailfishos.org/ . (As for my snarky post, read my other comment in this same thread to understand why I posted what I posted.)
Who am I to tell you how to spend your money? The point is, there are alternative unlike what you claimed. There is currently no foolproof way yet for Google to block apps. Also, it doesn't matter, in the long run - once the adoption of Sailfish OS picks up and it reaches critical mass, developers will switch to building apps for it. The "digital sovereignty movement" also helps. Russia has already bought and forked the source code of Sailfish OS and adopted it as its "national" state-sanctioned mobile operating system. This has had a ripple effect where many Russian apps have now been ported to it. China too has already forked Android to create its own "official" OS and most Chinese apps now also work on it. Similar attempts are going on with other countries too, who don't wish to be trapped in the duopoly that is Apple and Google in the mobile phone industry.
Every time you spend money, you are casting a vote for the kind of world you want. - Don't most of you here tell me that corporates don't need regulations as smart people "vote with their wallet"? If this is what some want to spend money on, the term "idiot" sounds justified ... anyway, the point was not to offend; just to embarrass some mildly to introspect their purchasing decision.
web is now so good that mobile apps lost any meaning to exist - unless you need to access some local hw or data on consistent basis(the app must run as daemon or something like that). in other words, if you app is a service, just use web. if it is not a service, then you just sell it as you would a desktop program.
Apple has an Apple Pay for Donations[1] program, which doesn't apply for rent seeking entities like Patreon. I wonder if Patreon's 10% fee is commensurate with the negligible value that they provide?
Happy to pay 42% higher Patreon fees in exchange for ease of subscription control, visibility, safety and ease of payment with in-app Apple payments.
It’s funny seeing people call 78% operating margin too high, while we all know that software VCs demand 90% margin from their startups, and if it wasn’t Apple, people here would call that an excellent business.
Just to put things into perspective: Visa and MasterCard interchange fee in EU is 0.2% for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards. Apple taking 100x this is just ridiculous.
So how do I avoid apple taking the cut? Unsubscribe from people in my ios app and resubscribe on the web? I subscribe to super small creators where this 30% cut makes a meaningful difference.
Some people say that Apple is wildly profitable and has more money than it can spend. But if profit goes down, even if it remains huge, then Apple stock takes a blow. And stockholders are who really this is all about. So really increasing profit a few percent a year is truly just barely keeping the head above the water.
Knowing there are Apple fanboys around HN (I got downvoted for saying the liquid glass thing and the iphone air were pointless) I fear they will take your comment seriously
I think I’m old enough to have experienced this cycle so many times with so many businesses that I just feel kind of silly to hate on Apple or Microsoft or whoever. They’re all just maximizing profits as designed.
I think people find it easier to scowl at the villain du jour than to dig into the deep complex issue of when capitalism doesn’t work, when the government isn’t doing enough, and what we could do about it… or the feeling that we really can’t do much.
That's why people don't dig into the deep complex issues. Because it's uncomfortable, and forces one to confront the potential reality that their worldview, and everything they've known about how our society works is wrong, broken, and collapsing in front of them.
It can be a very distressing and depressing state of mind. There's a reason "ignorance is bliss" is a common trope, because there's some real truth to it. For some, it's better for emotional and mental wellbeing to ignore the problems of reality and remain ignorant.
> For some, it's better for emotional and mental wellbeing to ignore the problems of reality and remain ignorant.
I think it isn't just some, it's effectively everyone, the nature of being human. Instead, there's a group of people who are willing to sacrifice their emotional and wellbeing to face these problems of reality, and try to use the limited power they do have to improve them, for the greater good.
We can do a lot if we pressure the company or the regulations around it. Maybe not right now in this current regime, but tides will shift.
The issue is that people's attention spans on this are much too short. The fervor around this may not even last to the end of this month, let alone until a change in power allows a new administration to properly go after the company.
You don’t need to solve the problems of capitalism to call bullshit bullshit. Saying “companies maximize profits” doesn’t magically make the behavior acceptable and when Apple does this, it’s not just “the market at work,” it’s the use of market power.
Complaining about it is part of the system operating the way it operates. It’s factored in already. I just think that it’s not really interesting. It’s reasoning about the instance, not the class.
With only two mobile OS providers, they should be highly regulated. But given Tim Cook gave Trump a golden award and attended the premiere of the Melania documentary, I doubt they’ll get any antitrust trouble. Disappointing rent seeking behavior.
This goes way beyond rent seeking, it is much closer to outright theft, for rent you get something in return. This is just a nice form of robbery and I'm sure it is all legal by some stretched definition of the word but it makes me sick.
Yesterday we had the monthly Woz adulation article, I really like the man but would like him even more if he told Cook to his face that this is not the Apple that he had in mind when he co-founded the company. It's not like he has anything to lose.
On the contrary. There is an ongoing DoJ antitrust case against Apple with a long list of grievances. Most of those were already addressed by Apple (since the case was filed a pretty long time ago) the rest will be tested in the courtroom in the following years.
Yeah, I don't understand this at all. I use Patreon and I support a couple of tech content creators. But my use of Patreon intersect in no way with iOS and I'm not sure how it would. Can someone please explain?
Okay so basicially apple users are dumb as rocks which is why iOS is so profitable in the first place, and they are corraled into installing apps and making in-app purchases.
Good question considering apps unequivocally have the right by court order to use their own billing, and considering the contempt ruling and referral for criminal investigation Apple already got for violating that order.
Epic didnt really win. If i recall correctly the ruling ended up being that 3rd party payment processors are allowed but 27% of app revenue is still owed to apple if that route is taken. So you can save 3% by using 3rd party payment processing but thats around how much those services cost anyway so no real saving
> While Apple implemented App Store policies to allow developers to link to alternative payment options, the policies still required the developer to provide a 27% revenue share back to Apple, and heavily restricted how they could be shown in apps. Epic filed complaints that these changes violated the ruling, and in April 2025 Rogers found for Epic that Apple had willfully violated her injunction, placing further restrictions on Apple including banning them from collecting revenue shares from non-Apple payment methods or imposing any restrictions on links to such alternative payment options. Though Apple is appealing this latest ruling, they approved the return of Fortnite with its third-party payment system to the App Store in May 2025.
That judge's ruling was essentially overturned last month on appeal.
> Even though Apple was no longer prohibiting linked-out purchases, the district court held that this new approach effectively prohibited linked-out purchases, and it violated the spirit of the injunction. The district court then enjoined Apple from imposing any commission or fee on linked-out purchases. However, the Ninth Circuit panel found that the complete ban was overbroad and punitive. Apple should be permitted to charge a commission based on costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for its coordination of external links and linked-out purchases, but not more.
"Genuinely and reasonably necessary", not being defined, will naturally be taken by Apple's malicious compliance department to mean "26%", I'm sure, and we'll get to enjoy a continued round of show trials in court with no meaningful effect for years to come.
I wouldn't describe that as "overturned" but rather "clarified a detail or two". They still aren't allowed to set arbitrary fees but if they can show receipts then they can demand reimbursement.
The idea seems to be that the injunction shouldn't be able to force Apple to operate a given account at an overall loss. They can bill you for resources of theirs that you actually use.
However, given we've seen how flagrantly they violated the first injunction, it's easy to believe they will take the liberty to interpret this one as maliciously as possible as well. Sure, if the fees are too high they'll end up back in court to attempt to prove costs, and maybe something will happen years later after bouncing around in appeals and violating new injunctions, or maybe it won't.
Epic lost on 9 counts out of 10 in the original lawsuit. The one they won is being appealed and in the process Fortnight was ordered to be reinstated in the US. I wouldn't bet that this arrangement will survive appeals.
I believe what you're saying is the benefit of Bitcoin (or other crypto) to get around gatekeepers.
I don't believe Patreon at this time supports any crypto. If they wanted they could open this up. Not sure if Apple would allow this (on an store app) without their 'slice' of the pie.
Apple's ecosystem is the 8th wonder of this world. Nowhere else you can put a logo on a piece of cloth or aluminum wheel and sell them for hundreds of dollars. Greatest capitalist company of all time.
Am I the only one that dislikes phone apps?! For example, I do NOT want to install an app for my power company. Just text/email me if you need to reach me and I can do anything else through their website.
I do support apps that support unique phone features: Phone, camera, GPS, etc.
Imagine if Visa or Mastercard decided they were going to take a 30% cut as a merchant fee. Governments wouldn't allow it. Why does Apple get a complete pass?
- the devs all need to get licesnses and specific hardware to develop for IOS
- They spin up their own servers to manage all the finances coming in
- They work on their payment processing solution separate from Apple. And Patreon still pays some fee to apple over the app.
- the model of Patreon only takes 5% off of creators, so that's not enough for Apple. It also wants a cut at the customers of the website who provide services. Customers not beholden to any one platform.\
- And to force them to do that, they are kicking the other processing plan off as an option, leaving only them to work with.
And it's somehow not evil? If I let a friend sleepover at my apartment, is the landlord in the right to demand a day of rent from them too?
A service that Apple is mandating everyone to use or else get kicked off their operating system...
This would be an entirely different conversation if Patreon was still allowed to use other payment systems outside of Apple's IAP service. No, this is Apple forbidding competitors on their platform.
I think it’s not that simple. These are not my words and I cannot only post the link [0] as the author uses the referrer to hide his articles from HN, but here’s the text:
Once again, Patreon is going to strong-arm all of us into "charge at the moment of sign-up" instead of "charge on the first of the month." They have wanted this for years, and once again they are saying that Apple has given them cover to demand it.
Here's what I wrote when they tried to pull this shit a year and a half ago and then chickened out:
Patreon has two billing models, monthly (bills on the first of the month, or whenever they get around to it) and daily (charges you the moment you sign up.)
For several years now, they have been trying really hard to get creators to switch to daily billing whether they like it or not, with a series of intrusive nags and dark patterns. E.g., the "Settings" tab always has an "unread" alert on it reminding me that I have not made the "recommended" change.
Now they're going to force everyone to switch, and they're blaming Apple for it. And, to be clear, fuck Apple, but also fuck Patreon, this is their choice and it's going to mean that I can no longer use their service.
Here's a support request I just sent them, again, after clicking 15 levels deep into their FAQ before finding the thing that might contact a human. Since the email alerting me of this change came from a "noreply" address because of course it did.
Feel free to send your own:
---
Subject: Subscription billing is unacceptable
You recently sent mail saying that you're going to force me to switch from monthly billing to subscription billing.
Subscription billing is unacceptable for my Patreon. It does not work.
I sell monthly memberships to a physical nightclub. The memberships begin on the first of the month. I fulfill and mail the physical membership cards on the first of the month. If you make me switch to daily billing, that means I will have to do merch fulfillment on a daily basis instead, and I simply cannot do that.
If you force me to switch from a monthly cycle to a daily cycle I will have no choice but to stop using Patreon.
To be clear: I do not give a shit about the iOS app. Not one fractional fuck is given. If the solution to this problem is that people cannot sign up for, or access, my Patreon from the iOS app, that is 100% acceptable to me.
I know for a fact that none -- zero, 0% -- of my patrons have signed up using the iOS app. I know this because I had to warn them away from it, due to the 30% Apple Tax, and all of them complied. All of them. The iOS app is utterly meaningless to me and to my patrons.
(Also you are blaming this on Apple's bullying, which is simply not credible. You've been nagging me to change to subscription billing for years, with the little red error icon appearing everywhere. This is your decision. You are transparently using Apple as an excuse.)
---
I said this same thing to you a year and a half ago, the last time you tried to pull this nonsense. Second verse, same as the first.
Last time, support replied that they "completely get why this change would be upsetting" and "will bring my feedback to the team." Uh huh.
Patreon's absolutely awful level of service and support has been a huge problem for quite some time, but I am really not looking forward to having to figure out how to implement recurring monthly billing on my own.
Patreon's whole shift away from the bulk billing never made sense to me.
I subscribe to like 10 patrons each at $1-$3/month. Right now they can just charge me once, $20/mo, pay 3%+30c card fee on that, they pay a buck in fees, get $19, great.
Instead they want to charge me $1, 10 times a month, hit with a 30c fee every time, instead paying a total of $5 in fees, getting way less proportionally.
They must really make their bulk on big patrons paying like $20+/month to a single patreon
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 them a membership card and cross their name off a list.
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!
TLDR: if you still have any Patreon subscriptions through Apple’s in-app-purchase flow (look in Settings > Apple Account > Subscriptions) cancel them and restart them on patreon.com
I've been trying to find a decent 16'' laptop (to replace my thinkpad x1 carbon).
Been running linux (popos) for donkey years and I entertained the thought I should go back to Apple and get the MacbookPro-16 (which is probably the best laptop you can buy imho).
Then I remembered all this crap that Apple does and dismissed it.
A few years ago I got the m1 macbook air (lovely hardware!). Some software update fully bricked it, which is really annoying already. Then I found out the only way to restore it was to connect it to another macbook. That was it for me.
Google play store and steam are the same. This is regulatory. Hating a company for maximising profits is really something you should aim at legislation to control unchecked capitalism.
Except neither of those two are the exclusive way to install software on a computer that you own. All 3 have their issues, but Apple is uniquely bad in this way. I don't find myself Hating Steam/Valve.
When the App Store first launched I think 30% was pretty fair fee for Apple to collect, but that was a long time ago, and before IAP/Subscriptions. Apple might still be entitled to some percentage but they've expanded to cover more and more things (like this Patreon change or Kindle back in the day) and now we have moved far, far beyond the pale.
Apple (perhaps like all corporations but I'm focusing on Apple) is a greedy company that has massively lost it's way. Tim Cook support fascists and/or anything to improve the bottom line, especially if it increases "services" [0]. Alan Dye (thank god he is now busy screwing up Meta) shipped the worst UI revamp I've seen in a while from a company Apple's size and the iOS/iPadOS/visionOS/macOS software is all in dire straits. And they managed to do all of this while alienating developers left and right and playing chicken with governments around the world [0] instead of relaxing their hold on their platforms.
But who cares? The stock price went up. /s
I was overjoyed to see Alan Dye leave (and Jony Ive) and hope that we don't have to wait too much longer to bid Tim Cook adieu. Whoever takes over next has a lot of work ahead to dig out of the hole Tim Cook dug for Apple.
Tim Cook might be the best thing for shareholders but he has been horrible for product quality (software and hardware) and for democracy.
[0] Pay no attention to how much of services revenue came from the Google search deal with the majority of the rest coming from casinos for children and adults alike.
[1] Like the EU DMA, which, I have publicly and privately voiced my dislike of parts of it but Apple has no one to blame but themselves. By keeping a white-knuckle grip on their revenue they forced governments across the world to pass laws (often bad IMHO) that fragment and confuse the entire iOS market.
I suspect developers are looking for these workaround because of the 30%. If Apple had asked for, say, 10%, would there be as many developers looking for loopholes?
I don't know. Apple perhaps should ask for compensation for "vouching for" the developer's app, hosting the app, distributing the app. But Steam shows us another model where the developer themselves pay a modest up-front cost to have their app hosted ($100) and then Steam steps out of the way.
I wonder if this would go a long way too to thinning the herd so to speak from the Apple App Store—perhaps improve the overall quality of the apps submitted.
I think a lot of developers were willing to let it slide when App Store was a luxury market. You could just ignore it and make regular webapps and/or desktop software.
But now iOS is the most popular computing platform in the US. We no longer _have_ an option to ignore it.
And 30% is just crazy. And it's _on_ _top_ of all other expenses: Apple hardware that you need to buy to develop for iOS, $100 per year subscription fee, overhead of using Apple's shitty tools, etc.
I have to respond to your point, though. Whether 30% cut is excessive depends on whether devs feel like they are getting a good deal. As far as I can tell, game developers don't seem to complain about Steam cut very much, it seems like the value you get is worth it.
For example, this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/10wvgoo/do_you_think... seems like majority is positive about it, even though people debate. When Apple tax is brought up, there's almost never even a discussion there, it's pretty universally hated.
Apple seems to have almost adveserial relationship to its developers. I deploy to App Store and I feel like I'm getting screwed. Even compared to Google, which takes the same cut, but does bahave a lot more nicely to its developers.
May I introduce you to years he let Jony Ive control that. Which brought us things like the butterfly keyboard, thinness at all costs (battery life), and loss of ports (in part due to thinness) that had to be walked back.
Incredible is stretching things. Apple had to catch up with AMD in efficiency, and they did that. Outside the mobile market, Apple is basically a non-entity.
Apple doesn't have huge sales volume for Macs because of macOS and their astronomical pricing schemes, but it's not because of the hardware. Macbooks are easily the best laptops you can buy for most purposes, and they have been since the M1 came out. That has never been true of Apple computers before.
It's because of the hardware. For mobile Apple is competitive, for desktop applications they don't even show up on most benchmarks next to AMD/Nvidia hardware.
That's also because of software. Apple deprecated OpenCL in MacOS eight years ago. In productivity software with solid Metal implementations, like Blender, the M4 Max is on par with the top of Nvidia's (mobile) 5xxx line, except with much more VRAM.
No software fix exists, Apple's GPUs are architecturally limited to raster efficiency (and now, matmul ops). It's frankly bewildering that a raster-optimized SOC struggles to decisively outperform a tensor-optimized CUDA system in 2026.
I get the feeling you had a specific use case that didn't work well with Apple GPUs? I'd be curious what it was. The architecture does have some unusual limitations.
By software problem, though, I meant referencing OpenCL benchmarks. No one in 2026 should be using OpenCL on macOS at all, and the benchmarks aren’t representative of the hardware.
I agree that the early days when every app was a single purchase and the prices were much higher it made more sense. A lot of people got rich from the App Store. So 30% wasn't a huge piece when you were seeing consistent growth every year in the user base.
I think the most annoying thing is how unevenly the policy is applied. Some megacorps pay the 30% and others like Amazon get sweetheart deals. So it unfortunately comes down to who benefits more. If you have something Apple really wants then they will cut a deal. But if not then you pay the high tax. They've at least cut it down somewhat for smaller devs and teams, but the whole industry needs to change. IAP/Subscriptions shouldn't just inherit the pricing systems of old.
I have a feeling Tim is just going to tank the Trump stuff and then peace out next admin so he gets all the blame. Much like Ive and Dye have been.
> I think the most annoying thing is how unevenly the policy is applied. Some megacorps pay the 30% and others like Amazon get sweetheart deals.
I agree, there were deals down to 15% I think (maybe lower) but I don't think that's still happening? I mean, Netflix finally gave up but only after increasing their IAP fee to cover the difference for many years. I might be behind the times on this but I didn't think they still had better cuts for larger corporations. I do know not all developers are treated the same (see Meta still being on the app store after all the shenanigans they pulled with enterprise certs, or Uber), and that does suck. It means that if you are big enough you can break the rules while an indie dev can have everything taken due to an automated system or mistake, even when it's not their fault.
> I have a feeling Tim is just going to tank the Trump stuff and then peace out next admin so he gets all the blame. Much like Ive and Dye have been.
I agree that's likely, though the thought of him staying till the "end" of that is not attractive.
Apple and the contracted company are very very unlikely to tell you they have a secret contract for lower prices in effect unless they are forced to under court disclosure.
Oh, I 100% agree. I was wrong, I thought they got in trouble for doing that but I think I am only remembering things that came out in discovery for the Epic case, which didn’t center on that or prevent Apple from having such arrangements.
There's little assurance of safety or 'fitness for purpose' for apps in the App Store. Apple takes 30% for distribution, and you're basically on your own.
It was the opposite. US mobile operator stores charged upward of 50% to sell stuff on their feature phones, with cherry on top in the form of paid submissions.
You think that's bad? Grugnar charge 80% to sell rocks in front of cave, but Grugnar killed by Bugluk and then cave belong to Bugluk. Bugluk eat you and take rocks if you try sell in front of cave.
I'm replying to the statement that 30% was always a bad deal, by providing an example that shows that it was a clear improvement on the market of mobile development (as others did the same in this comments section).
In your cavemen logic the closest example would be that nobody killed the first guy; he was forced out of business because a new cave opened nearby and they were selling rocks much cheaper.
What a weird comment lol. You can write a bot asking "why would anyone use (the product mentioned in title)" to every HN thread. That's how much it contributes to the discussion.
HN is becoming more and more like Stackoverflow. Half the comments pretend this is not an issue or irrelevant and the other half posts hasty, incorrect solutions.
I genuinely don’t know, which is why I asked. Even on mobile I only ever use the website and can see literally no benefit whatsoever to there being an app.
TLDR: user reach and convenience (or avoidance of the inconvenience artificially created by the app store companies to ensure own monopoly).
App stores are another source of distribution of the platform. Apps create another engagement channel. Apps are another way to reach more people and keep them "hooked" longer (push notifications, tighter integration with the system). Poor performance of the website-only apps is often offputting showing lower retention and engagement metrics. People don't konow how to create a web app icon on the home screen, but know how to search for apps in the appstore.
Some platforms make website-based apps harder to create and manage (in the name of the resource optimisation or security). So no background players, no face-based logins, no airplay, battery drains way faster with web based apps, no proper file storage, hard to handle guestures, no restoration of the state of the pages, etc, etc.
When inside patreon company there is a question "do we do the native app or we keep the website" there is no good argument from project manager side why not to do the app as it increases all the metrics they care about and accept future possible risk that something will change from Apple side.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I can totally see how my original message may have come across as snarky but it was honestly not intended as such. I sometimes feel like I don't understand my fellow humans at all and this is one of those times. I can see why patreon benefits from users using their app, but as an occasional user of patreon, as I say I am baffled that it's the sort of thing users will install an app for. It honestly never occurred to me to do so and as I say I use the website.
Cheers. It's hard to distinguish genuine from non-genuine people online. Especially when they ask things which appear trivial from where one stands. Thanks for having patience.
There's a kind of dissonance here that Patreon should be allowed to take a cut, being a platform on which creators can earn money - but Apple should not be allowed to take a cut, being a platform on which companies can operate their business.
I agree that 30% is high but the arguments I see online are generally in favor of a cut to 0%, not a reduction. If you get into the weeds of what the cut should be then it gets messy, who gets to decide? How do you determine what is actually fair for all parties?
I would argue Patreon is far more parasitic than Apple in this case, they're shaving off 10% for a pretty simple service.
Payment processors are generally really wary of services like Patreon. Cohost tried to set one up and was unable to find someone willing to stick by a commitment to process payments for an equivalent service.
I think it's reasonable to say Patreon shouldn't take 10%, but you can't ring up Visa and get a regular 2-3% rate from them for something like Patreon, most likely, due to things like brand risk, chargeback rates, etc.
Then there's all the administrative overhead involved in disbursing payments to creators from all sorts of different legal jurisdictions and reporting information to the right government agencies. I can easily imagine the operating costs of Patreon being something like 7-8% of the money they handle.
I haven't seen anyone in this particular thread calling for Apple's cut to be 0%. I do think they could afford that, but a common refrain is that Epic's rate of 12% would be sustainable, and I agree with that. It's also the case that Apple moved to a gradual rate system where low-income developers only pay 15%, which kind of proves that they don't actually need 30%, they just want 30%.
This is what I've never understood about Apple's argument that they need to be compensated for the R&D and ops costs of running the App Store. They already have this! It's the developer program fee!!
As far as I can tell it wasn't even raised in the Epic case either.
The dissonance is conflating criticism of someone's fee structure with a demand that someone be disallowed from charging a fee. That's just dishonest spin.
No one thinks Apple shouldn't be allowed to make a buck. No one thinks Patreon shouldn't be allowed to make a buck.
But Patreon's fees are near-universally held to be reasonable and fair, and Apple's are some bullshit.
Apple’s App Store profits on commissions from digital sales
[1] R&D, security, hosting, human review, and including building and maintaining developer tools Xcode, APIs, and SDKs.Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.
Fun Fact: During the Epic trial, it was revealed that Apple's profit margins on the App Store were so high that even Apple's own executives were sometimes surprised by the internal financial reports.
---
edit: There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.
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 don't have anything to do with this process except for listing the Patreon app on the app store, can justify taking a cut.
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.
> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else.
This is why Apple makes PWAs so miserable in Safari and disallows other browsers unless they're just Safari with lipstick.
Apple users seem to be fine with everything being much more expensive. Not only the 30% apple tax itself, developers know Apple users pay more and specify higher prices on Apple.
30% is also the cut google takes on the google play store. This is not an apple only issue. This is a regulatory one.
Google allows out–of–store installation (for now...) so it's much easier to argue there's competition. Apps installed through F–Droid don't have this tax.
And in the EU alternative app stores are allowed on iphone as well. In both cases, it’s a near negligible amount of people that use them. Your exceptions prove the rule, if anything.
> Everybody will slowly move to "web only" as 30% would kill their ability to compete with anybody else.
Frankly, yes, please. I mean, I'm biased as my whole career is in web app development, but there are so many things these days that do not need a whole native app. They're just communicating with a server backend somewhere, using none of the unique native functionality of the phone (much of which is available in browser APIs these days anyway). I can block ads in a web app much more easily. It's much harder to do customer-hostile things like block screenshots in a web app.
Native apps definitely have a place, but I think they're very overused, mostly for reasons that benefit the business at the expense of the customer.
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 browser will unload the app, and you will always get this friction when you load the web app on the new render you don't have on regular apps.
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.
> I think they're very overused
I disagree, native apps on iOS have important abilities that no web application can match. The inability to control cache long-term is alone a dealbreaker if trying to create an experience with minimal friction.
Service workers allow you to control cache in web apps; you may be a bit out of date.
There are hardware APIs for some stuff that only works in native (cors, raw tcp), but 99% of apps don't need those.
I think the parent may be referring to the fact that safari/webkit will evict all localstorage/indexeddb/caches etc after 7 days of not visiting a site. And apparently this now extends to PWAs making it a pretty big blog to building any infrequently accessed PWA that needs to persist user data locally.
I store my data in the service worker cache, so I guess I'm immune to this issue
Those same elevated controls are used to steal PII and sell to data brokers. Again, it's the companies that are trying to force apps on their users. If it were genuinely a much better UX, they wouldn't have to do that.
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've probably deleted 15 apps from my phone in the past year as I steadily move over to the web for everything.
My chat agent, file transfer tool, Grubhub, Amazon, YouTube, news, weather are all deleted in favor of a set of armored browsers that suppress the trash and clean up the experience. Its been an amazing change, as those companies no longer get a free advertisement on the application grid of my phone, making my use of them much more intentional.
Sure, once the user interacts with the first video.
If third party native apps were installed and run without user interaction the same as cross-origin redirects, I would expect the same limitations with native apps.
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
Yes I literally worked on a PWA with this exact feature.
I believe you can see it working on TikTok web as well.
You just can’t have the first video unmuted on initial load, although I wonder if this can be relaxed when user installs a PWA.
I'm sorry but why do you think this can't be done in a website?
As a user please for the love of god to not make me use a stupid mobile browser for everything. Native apps are so much better.
You couldn't make that argument because Patreon is also a platform to host content, not just send money. If it was something like a twitch donation app the argument would make more sense
The hosting aspect is only necessary because a) piracy and b) Google would eat their lunch if they were the gate keeper to content. Bit like how Ticketmaster takes all the money from artists because they get to say who sits in a seat.
You could if they built a donation & support trading app separate from the content app?
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
Isn't that exactly what this is? Except they're targeting a single app.
> You could make the argument that Patreon isn't much more than a banking app.
Don't give them any ideas.
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.
I would be surprised by that because iPhone users would notice that. I think the App Store model relies on their fee being invisible to consumers, and the increased price you’re paying not being linked to them. AFAIK apps aren’t allowed to explain that they charge more if you subscribe on iPhone to users either, or why they do so.
True, hard for bank deposits where the user sees both ends of the transaction.
For bill payments though, they'd just insist on taking 30% of your electric bill payment and if the electric company's margins aren't high enough to absorb that then "Haha that sounds like a you problem" - Tim Cook, probably
Apps are allowed to link to web services to offer payment as an alternative to IAPs and offer a discount for doing so, thanks to Apple v Epic.
While you're correct, it's worth noting that this only happened because the judge in the Epic lawsuit ordered an injunction forcing Apple to allow it.
Apple then "maliciously complied", allowing it while demanding a 27% fee on any web-based payments, which was found to be a violation of the injunction.
https://technologylaw.fkks.com/post/102ka4o/apple-violated-u...
Can they, or will they be delisted if they do that?
From the Patreon FAQ:
> Can I opt out of the App Store Fee?
> For U.S. fans, there’s still a way to avoid Apple’s fee. When signing up in the iOS app, they can choose web checkout instead of Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple’s rules require that any paid content shown in the iOS app is also available to purchase through Apple’s in-app system.
https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/28801582599181...
[dead]
When you use Apple Pay, Apple collects ~0.15% (15 bps) from the issuing banks for credit. $1B in transaction volume = $1.5M
In 2022 the total volume was estimated at $6T * .15% = $9B. Real number would be maybe half due to lower fees on debit, but it's hugely profitable for Apple, and carries zero risk.
I think this is a very strong and simple argument to use with regulators, politicians etc.
When I put my credit card into Apples ecosystem they take a 0.15% cut of the transaction and appear to be very happy with the results. When I put my application into the ecosystem they take 30%..
You can then break down why this is, but boy is that an interesting contrast.
They'd much rather have 30%.
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
I think Google Pay does not charge a fee.
Ah yes, back in the Isis days. What terrible luck in the naming department on that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcard
Imagine seeing a popup banner in an app each time you open it that interrupts whatever you're trying to do to say "open on our website!"
(Apple's censorship notwithstanding)
No kidding. Imagine if Apple took 30% of your Venmo transfers.
Why are you ok with Patreon taking a cut but not Apple?
Next up, 2% cut whenever you use any banking or payment app. Only 1.5% when you use Apple Pay!
They currently do charge 0.15% on Apple Pay actually.
If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.
If you were a chain store in a high end mall where customers cars were all parked for free by valets, mall staff knew their names, and generally made them feel special, you’d not balk at a higher commission to be paid to mall for access to their customers, right? Airports come to mind for this.
I believe apple lets you set whatever price you want on their store, just not tell customers that they could get a lower price elsewhere/on the vendor’s website (I don’t follow App Store policies very closely so my info is probably out of date).
Presumably you also would agree that it's fair if Chrome, Windows, and Lenovo all charged me 30% each for using Patreon via Chrome+Windows on a thinkpad, right?
They're doing about as much to facilitate my use of Patreon as Apple is.
This isn't like a mall at all. This is like a web browser, where apps are webpages, and Apple is insisting that the contents of that webpage are something they can dictate all payment terms on.
For the airport analogy to work, it would have to be that you go to the Airport, go into the electronics store, buy a Kindle, and then the Airport insists it can take 30% not just on the purchase of the kindle, but 30% on every single book you buy on the kindle forever.
Apple taking a cut on the purchase price of an app that a user found via the app store does make some sense. Apple taking a cut of an in-app interaction with a creator that the user almost certainly found elsewhere is nonsense.
What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app? Why does Patreon have to add a 30% cut on in-app content, when Safari lets me pay for in-app content with my credit card without taking any cut?
> certainly found elsewhere
I agree that if someone discovered the artist elsewhere, Apple has weaker standing in claiming a huge commission. But if they found an artist elsewhere, they would also know that they can support that artist elsewhere and not through the iOS app. If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.
That's not worth 30%. Imagine if Youtube charged 30% for anyone who clicked a link under a video in a web browser.
Even if people do enjoy browsing through the PAtreon app and choosing creators they want to subscribe to, that's not worth 30%. Rent-seeking is a cognitive disease.
And if I access Patreon via Chrome on Windows, and use Chrome on Windows to consume the artist's content, clearly I prefer the Chrome and Windows experience, so Microsoft and Google should be getting their 30% cut, right?
... and of course the user found the artist elsewhere than the iOS app store. They found them on youtube, or reddit, or _possibly_ on the webview inside the patreon iOS app, which is also _not_ apple's App Store content, it's content provided by Patreon.
Again, should accessing my bank via the Safari or Chrome iOS app mean apple gets 30% of all my bank transactions, just because they were displayed on a webview inside an iOS app?
The logical conclusion is that if you buy an Apple device from www.apple.com on your Windows PC, Microsoft should get a 30% cut of that sale.
There's a large amount of Apples:Oranges comparisons here that should be obvious to people who even read the headline, "in the iOS app" not "on iOS", as your comparison indicates.
Sure, if Google wants to start a business model where your websites only load if you sign a business agreement and agree to commissions.
However, regulators would probably take note that Google has been aggressively pushing their browser for free for over a decade to gain market share, and have a field day.
The difference is that Apple's business model hasn't changed - you've always been restricted to distributing apps under a business agreement, and the conditions on commissions have been pretty consistent since inception, or at least since IAP was added in 2009.
"What ifs" about Apple charging 30% for bank transactions would run afoul of regulators. This is about consuming member-exclusive goods and services in-app, which again has been in the contract terms since 2009.
Goods and services consumed outside of the app (such as purchases of physical items on Amazon, or plane tickets or the like) are actually forbidden from using in-app purchase and do not have a commission rate.
>If the patron found them through the patreon iOS app and use the app to consume the artist's content, then clearly the patron has indicated that they prefer the iOS experience.
I hate IOS enough that I'm running at least a full numbered version behind with updates turned off and never plan to buy another IOS device, and I'm subscribed to multiple Patreons started through the IOS app merely because it was the device in my hand and they automatically funnel Patreon links to it.
Chrome, Windows and Lenovo don't have the payment system baked in, with all the consumer protections that come with it.
I'm not entirely pro-Apple percentage in this argument, but I think people often dismiss the magical thing that Apple created with the app store and their payment/subscription system. The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.
I've gone directly to my bank for subscription charges billed directly to my credit card and they wouldn't reverse or stop them. Cancelling and reversing on the App Store is basic, easy, and friction-free.
Plus, the Android environment doesn't yield nearly the same sales volume even with significantly more installed units.
People spend on iOS and they don't spend on other platforms.
30% hurts and it sucks, but.. Patreon will probably take it because they'll do the math and it won't come out in favor of the alternative. That's what really sucks, beyond Apple max-max-maxing this.
>The rest of the world keeps ripping users off, and Apple's walled garden is as protected a thing as it gets.
This keeps getting repeated but it's not actually my experience. Not even Apple believes it, otherwise they could avoid a lot of legal and regulatory trouble by giving users a choice: Pay through Apple for an extra 30% protection fee.
Apple's walled garden couldn't even protect it's users from a literal LastPass scam app. It was reviewed by Apple. It passed. It was in the store.
The screenshots for the app had "Documets" and "Lasspass" prominently visible
Nothing about this is for your sake.
I had a Patreon subscription I forgot about. I went to Patreon and ended it. It took about a minute, including filling out the feedback form about why I was quitting.
They can offer to cancel or reverse subscriptions because you paid 5x that subscription amount just in fees.
> Chrome, Windows and Lenovo don't have the payment system baked in, with all the consumer protections that come with it.
Chrome definitely does, at least to a degree.
But you have the option to not use it, because guess what? You're supposed to own the device.
Chrome doesn't do this, Chrome has a wallet and you're still stuck talking to your credit card company.
It looks like you may have edited your comment, but the issues of Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues.
I don't think I edited my comment...
> you're still stuck talking to your credit card company
AFAIK Apple still talks to it too, they just have a deeper/better experience on the platforms they own and provide a service where they can generate a virtual card for you, so you're shielded from the merchant, but not from your card issuer.
> Apple's app store payment percentage, the open/closed nature of their appstore, and the ability to sideload apps are 3 separate issues
Yes and no, because Apple wants to use the closed nature of their ecosystem to offer their solution as the only possible one, yet at the same time claim that they deserve their 30% cut because it's the best solution out there and they provide so much value.
> I don't think I edited my comment...
It might've been HN weirdness. I was getting the one sentence in one view and the whole message in the other view. Re-loading didn't get them consistent. Hmm.
The cost side of that protection is < 0.1% not 30%.
Chrome and Windows definitely do have payment systems baked in. Google Pay, the Microsoft Store, etc.
I can cancel easily my subscriptions ik PayPal with ohne click, without them taking 30%
>What next, should apple take a 30% cut of my rent because I found my apartment on the Craigslist app? Should they take a 30% of my train ticket that I purchased using the Safari app?
Sure they could, and usage of those products to purchase goods would nominally drop to 0%. People do not care about a lot of things, but they do care about losing money.
Apple would then force the with-IAP price to be the same as the without-IAP price so that they get a 30% cut of your rent regardless. You may be underestimating their willingness to tax all economic activity
While this would obviously be harmful to the consumer, I don't see this as plausible.
Amazon was able to achieve this by positioning themselves as the primary distributor of the goods in question. Apple is in no position to leverage a monopoly over fiat transer or housing supply.
With regard to municipal transportation, perhaps they are edging closer with Apple Pay, NFC, Wallet, etc.. but I can't imagine municipalities supporting, or constituents accepting, a tax on their existing taxes.
Of course, maybe Apple.gov is the long game. Hard to say whether that would be better or worse that the status quo..
> If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.
When I paid over $1000 to buy an iPhone I thought I was buying a technological product that I could use to improve my life.
I didn’t realize I was buying a ticket to Disneyland where the seller of the product decided how I interacted with everything the device enabled.
I don’t think this should be disallowed. I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.
> I didn’t realize I was buying a ticket to Disneyland where the seller of the product decided how I interacted with everything the device enabled.
If you're the sort of person who posts on HN and you bought an iPhone after they hit the $1000 price point, you probably did know that.
It surprises me a little that so many people who do know still make that choice.
I think the point OP is making is not that they actually didn't know, but that they shouldn't have to know for that price.
> I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.
I wonder if that has ever been tried against Apple or a similar company in a court of law, because I think there might be real merit there. One would have to get a bunch of people together claiming a refund on the purchase price on the grounds that ownership hasn't been transferred and therefore Apple is in breach of contract in relation to the contract for sale of an iPhone. Then those people would have to bring a class action, and the case would revolve around the concept of "ownership". Because "ownership", to a first approximation, means the legal right to do with some piece of property essentially as you please, and Apple is clearly basing much of their business on the assumption that users do not have those rights and is taking positive action to prevent users from exercising such rights.
I don't know much about the law in the rest of the world, except Germany, but in Germany that would certainly be the case, and there is a surprising amount of case law revolving around such things as horses or other animals being sold, and the former owner then trying to restrict the new owner in exercising their ownership rights, which generally end with ownership rights being upheld by courts.
I’ve been thinking for a while now that a really effective way to deal with problem companies would be coordinate a mass action on small claims closets around the world all on the same day.
Often in small claims court you win by default if the other person doesn’t show up and I’m sure judges know average will sympathize with the kinds of arguments that you raised above.
I don't know. We don't have any such thing as small claims court in Germany, but my expectation would be that judges in low-level courts will try their very best not to get noticed for setting any kind of precedent whatsoever. The only thing that's going to happen if you rule against Apple in a low-level court is that they will go into revision, and carrying a high probability that the higher-level judge will overturn the decision and make the lower-level judge look bad in the process.
Also, any kind of effort to annoy someone by bringing coordinated actions in lots of venues all at the same time is probably abuse of process.
The idea isn't just to use small claims courts, but to use whatever first level legal venue to seek redress you can find in your area. That might mean small claims courts, or consumer protection bureaus, or binding arbitration. Whatever it is the idea is to coordinate with others to do so in a way that strains the resources of the organization you're fighting against and is in venues that are sympathetic to consumers and are able to make clear judgements with little chance for the opposing side to appeal.
The goal of this isn't to annoy someone, the goal is to seek compensation for their unacceptable behavior and raise awareness of it so that others may do so as well.
With the mindboggling assymetry in resources between a single individual and an entity like Apple or Google it only makes sense for people to team up and coordinate against them.
>but my expectation would be that judges in low-level courts will try their very best not to get noticed for setting any kind of precedent whatsoever.
Is there even such a thing as precedent in the German legal system?
There isn't.
Case law isn't directly normative in civil law traditions like Germany and France in the same way it is in common law traditions like the U.S. and U.K. But court decisions that are deemed interesting do get picked up in journals, cited in academic literature, and cited by other judges in their own decisions. There is a herd dynamics psychology where judges and academic writers default to following along with the principles established in each other's decisions and academic writing, rather than go against that consensus. (Unless their conviction is very strong, and they are, depending on the gravity of the issue, willing to stake their reputations and careers on those convictions). -- I brushed over that distinction when I used the term “precedent”. In my mind it's pot-ay-toh po-tah-toh.
I think a fair coordination would be for someone somewhere to complain about this every single day (1/country).
You have the legal right to do anything to your iPhone that you please, except for DMCA circumvention. Apple, cleverly, designs it so you can't do very much without DMCA circumvention. But it is the government's fault for this loophole, not Apple's.
It is the governments fault that it exists, and apples fault for exploiting it to the extent they do.
It’s a choice, and you can tell it’s a choice because many, many other companies choose not to.
Do they? Seems every company exploits DMCA anticircumvention. Even the ones that sell tractors.
DMCA is only a thing in the US.
Is this sarcasm? Apple pretty much invented the walled garden of personal computing.
I subscribe to a half dozen creators and I have exclusively used the web interface to subscribe and consume this content. You cannot tell me with a straight face that if the only difference was I subscribed on my phone to someone who charges me $10/mo, Apple is entitled to $36 for the first year and $18/yr in perpetuity thereafter.
I don’t think anyone suggests Apple should get nothing for their app store services, just that it shouldn’t be 30% of every transaction processed through every iOS app.
The EU has the right approach. Don't try to legislate exactly what is a fair/unfair amount of profit to make - change the rules of the game by requiring third party marketplaces and payment platforms so apple has to lower rates or lose every app into a third party store.
Apple can easily say "Use our store exclusively and you get our security/privacy guarantees. Go outside our store and you're in the wild west". App developers can then decide how much fee they are willing to pay for access to the user base who refuse to venture into the wild west. Other stores might try to persuade users that they are more secure and more private too via stricter review policies or more locked down permissions etc.
From a consumer point of view, the best approach would be if devlopers had to sell their app in Apple's App Store (if Apple approves) and could optionally provide other purchasing options on top of that.
It would prevent fragmentation and give people a choice to pay up if they actually value Apple's extra protections (if any).
Several years in, I don't believe Apple has lowered rates at all.
If the EU has the right approach, then they still do not have the right implementation.
They did lower them to 15% due to regulatory pressure for smaller vendors. And for compliance with EU DSA, they've tried countless malicious compliance efforts, that have been struck down again and again.
The only reason they haven't been smacked with a billion dollar fine for their Bullshit (Core Technology Fee)yet, is because of Trump.
What they should get is customers for their phones and computers.
I think that is in fact exactly what GP is suggesting.
I don’t read it that way. I think the point is it doesn’t make sense that apple is taking a cut of a transaction that is not in their payment rails*. Apple can still be compensated for their App store service without using a model that takes 30% of all transactions, e.g. a listing fee, an app review fee, etc.
*And anything on their payment rails should have a normal transaction fee, e.g. Stripe’s retail rate is 2.9% + $0.30.
This is the model they have moved to in the EU - an annual per user-app core technology fee for apps enabled to be listed outside the store, and relaxed in-store rules (and reduced commissions) if you choose to still list in Apple's App Store. Effectively, they are acting as if commissions are paying the core technology fee, and subsidizing it for apps which aren't profitable.
The per-user model means that apps which have adopted freemium and advertising-driven models wind up having quite different financials, and could be more expensive.
Yes it's fine but the 30% should be charged to the customer who wants to stay within that ecosystem of course. If they want that white glove treatment they can pay for it. Of course once the users see how much that fluffy ecosystem actually costs them I bet most of them will just pay patreon directly :)
If the platform like patreon is supposed to absorb that fee they will increase prices for everyone even people who won't touch Apple like me. That's not fair. Or more likely, they will just give less to the content creators.
In the EU it's already forbidden to force payments through Apple or to forbid the platforms to charge the fee back to the customer.
Should Ford get a 30% cut every time you fill your gas tank ?
Don't worry, we are well into "car branded fuel only" territory with electric vehicles.
"Buy our electricity at a huge markup to power your vehicle. Oh, you don't have one of our vehicles? Sorry, that's an extra 10% on top"
This was dystopic scifi like 20 years ago and Americans are so clueless they just sleepwalked into it because they'd rather not have a government at all.
Certainly not defending Apple's behavior in this instance, but isn't the success of the larger product ecosystem a direct driver of their App Store profitability? To strictly evaluate the App Store finances in isolation seems to be the sort of accusation you've levied against Apple in the opposite direction..
I like Apple less and less these days for various reasons, but I haven't purchased an app on the App Store in more than a decade. It's strictly a vehicle for local utilities when, for whatever reason, a browser will not suffice. Nearly all purchasing is done on the 'open' web.
Or you could argue the App Store wouldn’t exist without the hardware, so the relevant reporting is both combined - lower margins.
> ...for the sake of legal argument. R&D shouldn't really be included
That's an incredibly ridiculous take. R&D is an operating cost and it's an ongoing expense related to the app store existing.
> I think the actual profit margin is closer to ...
You can replace "think" there with "feel".
What really makes it uncomfortable is that Apple isn't just a neutral marketplace. They control the OS, the distribution channel, and the payment rails, so creators and platforms like Patreon can't realistically opt out
They could opt out - by sticking to web platforms.
Apple cannot charge for that. However, apple does attempt to gimp the web platforms on mobile to "subtly" push for apps.
The whole Epic vs Apple was about Apple blocking this. Before being slapped by regulators, Apple had anti-steering policies forbidding iOS apps from even mentioning that purchasing elsewhere is possible.
Even after EU DSA told them to allow purchases via Web, Apple literally demanded a 27% cut from purchases happening outside of App Store (and then a bunch of other arrogantly greedy fee structures that keeps them in courts).
Apple knows how hard is not to be in the duopoly of app stores. They keep web apps half-assed, won't direct users to them, but allow knock-off apps to use your trademarks in their search keywords.
They do and it’s awful. I’m making a browser based game and it works great on desktop browsers but Apple refuses to allow css filters on canvas forcing you to build your own filters and apply them to image data. The web audio api is also a pain to get working properly on iOS safari and a bunch of other arbitrary but feels like they’re intentional obstacles found only on iOS. I’m almost considering just using webgl instead of a 2d context but who knows what obstacles apple is hiding there also it will make everything so much more verbose for no real gain.
Not even in the days of IE was I ever this frustrated.
> Not even in the days of IE was I ever this frustrated.
I've been web devving since the days of IE as well and this reeks of hyperbole. Maybe things are different for browser games, but for me, everything has vastly improved since those days.
Well maybe we are doing different things. Back in those days Javascript and CSS were much simpler people would cry about the position of elements and easy stuff like that. However I have to manually manage web audio api memory because if you don't release the buffers and other things the memory won't get released until the tab in closed, so it's easy for a tab to inexpertly take up 6gigs plus of ram (1min of audio is ~80mb), it's impossible to know that, that is happening unless you know, so you have this missive memory leak that even refreshing the tab won't fix and you have no idea why it happening, that is true frustration. You have to manage memory in canvas too especially if you are using bitmaps and if you are on iOS because it will crash the page because you looked at it wrong. I don't know anything that would have crashed the page in IE back in the day. So no, it is not hyperbole :)
Sorry, I shouldn't comment before I have my coffee. Saying it "reeks of hyperbole" was unnecessarily rude.
That does sound frustrating. You're working with APIs that I don't usually touch (audio, canvas) so it's not surprising that I haven't experienced that. I was thinking back to the days I had to support IE 8, trying to debug weird issues in production like scripts not working because `console.log` wasn't defined unless the developer tools were opened.
To be fair, he's completely right. I have a lot of experience with IE6 and safari on iOS, and while IE6 was bad and did weird shit, Safari is much worse. It's amazing that things can work in any browser, without ever even thinking about it, but then on Safari you get weird behaviour, straight up rendering bugs because of some weird race conditions with the engine or even crashes.
The latest issue that I've noticed yesterday is the button nav bar on the screen when running PWAs. The button is over the bottom navbar of the PWA, and despite apple themselves coming up with the API to inform the browser about safe display areas, it doesn't work in PWAs on iOS. PWA mode on iOS != non PWA on iOS. They often behave completely different and you often have to use JS for basic things to work, like clicking a link(yup, this was a thing for years).
I tried something similar a couple years back, and fully agree. Safari is atrocious for trying to create a good mobile experience. It almost feels intentional.
They can opt out like you can opt out of using a phone. Sure, you won't die, but you won't have much of a social life either.
You do know a phone has a browser installed right?
Really? Where can I see all the games this "browser" has, ranked by rating?
Due to the web's distributed nature, "all" is impossible, but there are plenty of ranked-by-rating lists of web games out there. I don't want to be spammy so I'm only gonna link one of them that comes to mind, but there are a lot of other listings you can find at any search engine of your choice!
https://www.kongregate.com/
(All is impossible for both iOS and Android also: Games that don't get updated, games that get unlisted due to having a link to their own website with the wrong phrasing next to it, games that get unlisted due to the app store owner not being satisfied with the description page for the game, regional restrictions, requests from governments to remove socially unacceptable apps, etc)
My point was that the web has orders of magnitude worse discoverability than the stores, otherwise everyone would obviously just publish on the web.
Saying "oh just do the thing you aren't doing" shows that one of two things is true: Either every app developer currently doesn't know the web exists, or everyone else knows something you don't.
Your point doesn't make any sense. The only reason Apple's store can have "all" the apps is that they are a monopolist and take steps to disallow anyone from selling apps through any other channel, so there cannot possibly be multiple storefronts with different selections like their is in any other context.
On Android for example, Play Store does not have "all" apps, or even most apps that I have on my phone. Because Play Store has mostly garbage. It's a surprise to no one that Steam's storefront has a different selection from Amazon or Epic or GoG in the same way that no one is surprised that Walmart and Target carry different items.
So "discovery" in your sense is basically "I ignore everything that isn't presented by this particular storefront", i.e. a complete lack of discovery.
If you think "the web has orders of magnitude worse discoverability than mobile app stores" makes no sense, then there's not enough common ground for us to have a productive discussion on this.
Yes it is a nonsense statement. Literally, devoid of meaning. The web contains mobile app stores. e.g.
https://www.humblebundle.com/store/c/all?sort=bestselling&pa...
https://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b/?ie=UTF8&node=235014901...
https://play.google.com/store/
https://store.steampowered.com/ (yes, you can run PC games on Android if your hardware is up to the task)
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/
Apple doesn't have some special magic "discoverability"; they just prevent any other stores from being able to compete with them. Actually, searching for the iOS app store, I get:
https://www.apple.com/app-store/
which has no obvious way to even browse or search apps? How am I supposed to see what's available? I need to buy an expensive phone before I can even see what it can run? This is more discoverable? The bottom nav bar entry for "App Store" just takes me to the same page. If I click on "Store" it just shows me hardware; no apps. Where's the store and how am I supposed to find it? Do I need to physically go into an Apple store and use a phone there to browse?
I'm aware of your point. I disagree with it. A lot of companies seemingly have found it viable to have first-class web apps as part of their lineup; Off the top of my head: Uber and Uber Eats, KFC, Patreon, (And every single competitor to Patreon), every single mini-app in China (where discoverability is much higher), etc etc.
There are more app-having companies that have web apps than not
The original point wasn't that it's viable to also have a web app, but whether it's viable to only have a web app. How many of the companies you mentioned don't have mobile apps at all?
Of the patreon alternatives (dependent on content), Substack, X, Youtube, BuyMeACoffee, all have fan-side apps. kofi, Fourthwall, Squarespace, all the NSFW-centric alternatives, do not.
Of the mini-apps in China, I don't know, I was never exposed to the existence of their non-mini-app counterparts.
This rethoric is destructive and threatens society and democracy alike. Apple is not just some company that you can just opt out of, if you're working in a certain field. Just like you can't opt out to YouTube if you're a content creator.
It not like an email service where you can just switch from Gmail to fastmail to proton or to any of the other dozens of big email providers.
There's apple. There Google. That's it.
Opt out. Jesus Christ...
Why could Apple not charge a percentage for any user using their mobile device? Why would it be limited to app store?
Because they don't control those. Apple could choose to only allow users to access websites that pay them a bit 30% fee, but users would notice the web was turned off on their device. They don't notice when the app store does it.
Until a court order stopped them, Apple was collecting a 27% tax on certain external payments even though they didn't control the payment rails. They required developers to report their external payment revenue and sent them invoices. Developers had to commit to that or their apps would be rejected for having external payments.
It's at least "reasonable" that if the app was where users derived usage, and would've purchased thru the app but for the external purchasing option, then apple has a case for it.
However, there's no such case for web (as in, web _only_).
If usage of an app gives Apple some justification for taxing payments, by similar logic would usage of the iPhone itself, and Safari, give them a similar some justification?
"The user would have used our payment rails had there not been other options" seems to apply universally; Apple could say the same thing about website owners steering users away from some expensive "Apple web pay" option.
I think the difference is just leverage. Apple isn't curating what websites iOS users are allowed to visit (yet...), so they can't tell website owners "pay up or we'll block you".
I don't think people would notice if Apple just made the website behind a paywall. Most people are not going to be aware that they can access the same content without paying a fee to Apple. They may only even have an Apple device to access the internet, so they'd just see it as normal
I doubt it. People are pretty savvy when it's about getting something more cheaply or for free.
While inconvenient and likely to reduce patrons, the article does describe how they can opt out: use the web to do any payment activity.
Don't forget they also directly compete with Patreon with podcast subscriptions. You can support a podcast through Apple podcasts or Patreon, but only one of those has a 30% chunk taken out.
IIRC Premium Apple podcasts charge their standard subscription fees (eg 30% the first year, 15% the years after that)
That's pretty much the conclusion the EU came to and why they introduced the notion of gatekeepers in the DMA.
It doesn't matter if you are not technically in a dominant position if your special role in a large ecosystem basically allows you to act like one in your own purview.
You could say this kind of move invites more scrutiny but the regulators are already there watching every Apple's move with a microscope and their patience with Apple attempts at thwarting compliance is apparently wearing thin at least in the EU if you look at preliminary findings.
Yeah, because they built it. If people were using Linux everywhere, the situation would be different.
The problem is the monopoly over distribution channels. Regulation needs to force devices to allow A) downloading and using packages & executables from the internet, and B) any app to download and install other apps.
Regulating the fees for one central app store is no solution.
> downloading and using packages & executables from the internet
Oh boy, now my mom can get the full experience of having malware on her phone too!
With freedom also comes responsibility, and some innocent people will inevitably shoot themselves in the foot. This is not a strong enough argument for putting everybody else in a cage and letting a duopoly take over virtually all of the distribution of consumer software.
It might be a strong argument depending on the negative effects - I don't think it's very clear cut. Also no, neither Apple nor Google have a duopoly on the distribution of all consumer software. Microsoft exists, for example.
The other problem consideration here is negotiating power.
Today consumers don't have negotiating power over individual developers, but both Apple and Google do. If you complain to Meta about their unwanted tracking, you don't really have many options besides deleting the app (which you should do anyway). But if enough people complain to Apple or Google, they are more inclined to do something and have the power.
While it may be a marriage of convenience, it's undeniable that both companies through their app distribution models have also provided benefits to consumers that developers otherwise would have abused - privacy, screen recording, malicious advertising, &c.
If you want to argue from the standpoint of pro-consumer action, you have to remember that "developers" are usually pretty awful too and will get away with anything they can, even if it harms their customers. A good balance, instead of ideological purity about one "side" or the other is the smarter move. I tend to come down on the side of the mainstream app stores precisely because those asking for more "freedom" to do as they wish are a tiny minority and are usually more technical. I.e. they can jump through the hoops to install 3rd party app stores and jailbreak their phones today, and since you already can do what you want, maybe it's best to just leave the masses alone since they're very obviously happy with the duopoly.
I run GrapheneOS, but I can't use the national digital identity app because it requires Google Play Integrity. I very much cannot do what I want without it having severe consequences because the duopoly is starting to shape the basic digital infrastructure, and critical services start requiring that I use one of the two ecosystems.
I think the principle of digital autonomy should be front and center. Surely we can figure out security models that don't imply that two American tech companies get to call the shots on what people can or cannot do on hardware that they supposedly own.
Working adjacent to such digital identity app development, they are unfortunately regulated to require such device integrity approaches.
If Google Play Integrity didn't exist, the app would only be certified to run on e.g. unrooted Samsung Knox devices.
Yes, but the regulation is wrong, since it is based on an irrational security analysis and cover-my-ass politics which belong in private companies and not in government institutions which are supposed to protect the freedoms of the citizens.
The technical security requirements should not be hard to define, i.e. the platform on which the solution runs should require all keys to be device-bound with a certificate chain from the hardware manufacturer proving this to the issuers during enrollment. The operating system should also be able to verify to the issuer that the hash of the app is recognized as an official app.
However, the strongest integrity level of solutions like Play Integrity - which is the only level that GrapheneOS cannot pass, and which only my national identity app requires - is protecting against very theoretical attacks which I don't believe actually happen in the real world, since it not only protects against fake malicious identity apps, but also against the scenario where a scammer has convinced their target of installing a custom Android operating system which fakes the app integrity verification. This attack requires a victim with a technical aptitude that allows them to unlock the bootloader and use adb, but which is at the same time gullible enough to believe the attacker. It also requires that the attacker builds a malicious Android release for the exact hardware of the victim. Seriously, if the victim is this easy to manipulate and also this resourceful, then the attacker should just convince them to disable biometrics and send the phone to the attacker by mail.
It is very very clever of Google to disguise what is essentially voluntary vendor lock-in as a security feature.
Apple and Google each respectively have a monopoly in their markets. Only apple approved apps may be installed on an iPhone.
Digital goods DO NOT work like physical goods. I can just buy another washing machine. I CANNOT just choose to opt out of using a smartphone. My choices are apple or Google, and even within those choices it's limited by network effects.
Well, you have to balance it with how much you want to line the coffers of malicious actors.
If you go all the way to "everyone should have the freedom to get pwned", then you are also funneling the money of innocents into the pockets of some of the worst people in the world, and that's not a great outcome just to make life more convient for some HNers.
The question is about what trade-off makes sense for most people. That probably is some sort of escape hatch nontech people just won't do.
Maybe it's a hard thing to appreciate until you've watched aging family members get tricked by absolute scum, mostly enabled by how loosey-goosey modern computing can still be.
The thing is, apple decides this for themselves, on a product that you fully bought and privately own. It bundles the most brilliant and most incompetent clueless people into 1 group and goes for lowest denominator. No freedom of choice.
Of course thats PR argument, in reality its about distorting and manipulating the market to get the most money out of its users and bind them to their ecosystem as hard as possible to extract even more. And the amount of those same people who uncritically defend them here is still staggering. But maybe its just employees ignoring their ndas, some investors and similar folks.
You can make the default locked down and still allow other operating systems, and most alternative operating systems will also come with a suitably strong security model that does not easily allow the user to fuck themselves. I don't think not locking everything down completely will inevitably lead to every elderly person becoming a victim of scam, so I don't acknowledge that argument.
Let's not put everybody in a cage because we can't stop dumb people from walking off cliffs.
I hate the classic apple users' "mom" argument. Why are all your moms morons? And why do you want to fuck up the entire mobile landscape to baby proof it for them. Im not gonna ruin my experience with technology because you dont expect your mom to be able to wipe her ass without apple's help
There is nothing stopping you from using non-Apple hardware to escape restrictions on downloading unreviewed software.
There are many things impeding you from doing so and you know it, because Apple designed it that way. Walled garden, remember?
I hate the classic “everyone should be an expert at IT and it’s their fault and they had it coming due to their own ignorance if they make mistakes” argument far more than you hate mine.
> no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism
Right on. But that's exactly the wiggle room where voters could pull some of those cards like "climate change mitigation (of consequences)", "climate change preparation", "upcoming waves of climate change refugees", "AI dividing the population", "Universal Basic Income", all of which are things companies like Apple won't do anything for (or against) while their goods are still mostly for proper earners and not for people who buy stuff at a discount (I'm exaggerating).
Since corporate altruism is definitely not on the menu, government institutions and NGOs will have to pick up way more than they are currently prepared for.
We are in a strange phase of calm before the storm, despite all those wars and conflicts--or in spite of them, I don't know. Shits' gonna hit the fan sooner or later and it's up to the voters to demand adequate preparation.
Big Corps caused significantly more damage than they had to cause for all those profits, whether as a side effect or not, and they did that long enough.
Job cuts, whether due to AI or not, will remain a thing while no "new" giants will rise for quite a while ... and corporations will sing the song "it's what the people want" only as long as voters will stay quiet.
Sure, bribes, corruption and blablabla, but it doesn't change how votes work and none of it changes how the devoted clerks in the administration do their jobs and write laws (if they have to have to) ...
> Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.
We can say this to any company, "$X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits", but it doesn't really make any sense. Making profits is what makes a company a company instead of a non-profit organization.
It does make sense to highlight, because this kind of statistic is a very strong indicator that the market is not competitive. This is not a normal kind of profit margin and basically everyone except for Apple would benefit from them lowering the margins.
In normal markets there are competitors who force each other to keep reasonable profit margins and to improve their product as opposed to milking other people's hard work at the expense of the consumer.
Might not be competitive but it’s totally voluntary. No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter, so clearly consumers are willing and able to pay this.
The consumer is willing to pay the price based on the perceived value from the App Store
The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
> The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
Collective action by the creators would help.
All they have to do is dual-host (a fairly trivial matter, compared to organised collective action). What would make things even better is if they dual host on a competing platform and specify in their content that the competing platform charges lower fees. If even 10% of the creators did this:
1. Many of the consumers would switch. 2. Many of the creators not on the competing platform would also offer dual-hosting.
The problem is not "As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set". The problem is the mindset that their content is not their own.
I say it's their mindset, because they certainly don't act as if they own the content - when your content is available only via a single channel, you don't own your content, you are simply a supplier for that channel.
> specify in their content that the competing platform charges lower fees.
Apple will ban you for this.
> Apple will ban you for this.
How? I thought it was a Patreon thing - the "competing platform" would be competing with the Patreon app.
I'm not familiar with Patreon, but I thought the way it worked was that you could tip content creators via the Patreon app. I'm pretty certain that Apple cannot tell Patreon (a third party) that they are only allowed to offer exclusive content.
Apple doesn’t allow you to mention that you have alternate payment channels on other platforms. Can’t even allude to it.
To me this is the thing that should be outlawed. Let people pay the Apple tax if they want, but don’t prevent people from making other arrangements. Most people are lazy and will pay the tax, if it isn’t excessive.
What is also totally voluntary is our decision to let Apple exist as an entitiy, to give them a government enforced monopoly over certain things, to make it illegal to break their technical protections of their monopoly etc.
> No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter
"No one needs app" is not the same as "No one has biological mandatory need to have an app"
When parts of a market become dominated by one or few companies operating in a limited choice environment, consumers can't just opt to not use both Apple and Play store. You need to choose one in practice.
At this point the regulators should investigate what the barriers are to new entrants and if it's too costly and nobody has managed to cut in the last few years, establishing some rules is probably a good thing. This happens as industries mature and become critical, it happened in transportation (most bus, train companies), energy, water supply, trash, etc, depending on the country and market conditions.
Barrier to entry is simple: both Google and Apple heavily discourage "sideloading" or make it practically impossible.
Google is moving in that direction.
High profit margins are a sign of market failure.
Not so much a failure. Rather, there is no intent for there to be a market here at all. A market relies on offerings being reproducible. Intellectual property laws are designed specifically to prevent reproduction.
"Competition is for losers"
Makes me think of the concept of involution in Chinese business and how they understand all of this very differently, and how difficult it is to compete because of that.
For anyone else wondering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neijuan
Agreed, but this is about to be a special case if it's not already. We're contending with compulsory digital IDs and cashless economies that must be used on authorized devices, and Apple is one of the two makers. While it's certainly not necessary to use Patreon, not having it or something like it is an actual barrier to individual trade. I don't think I can get behind a schema that means Apple can take whatever portion it wants from a transaction initiated on a device that it creates and that is otherwise fairly necessary for day-to-day life in the developed world.
it sounds like it does make sense because if they are making $Z profits then they are still making profits and are not non-profit.
there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.
Which it has been my observation that when someone is saying "X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits" it often coincides with saying therefore company X should be legislated on this particular profit source.
Note: $X didn't make much rhetorical sense.
>there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.
Not in an environment where regulatory capture costs so much less than any change legislation could bring. The remedy in almost every recent monopoly case has been remarkably nothing. Politicians don’t actually want change, they want the threat of legislation so that industries bring truckloads of money to line their pockets.
I think it's a little known fact that societies don't exist for the benefit of companies. It's actually the other way around.
“Growth is what makes a cell a cell.”
Until it turns into cancer because of unrestrained growth.
Like it or not capitalism is a part of an ecosystem. We’ve been “educated” to believe that unrestrained growth in profits is what makes capitalism work, and yet day after day there are fresh examples of how our experience as consumers has gotten worse under capitalism because of the idea that profits should forever be growing.
It makes sense that regulators can step in without destroying a company.
"Why wait until tomorrow to get one golden egg when I can kill the goose today and get all the golden eggs?"
Let's be honest if this was a European company it would be capped by law at 5-10%. Problem is who has an incentive to do the right thing here? Not apple and certainly not the US government (most of this revenue comes from outside the US).Nobody can defend it, yet nobody wishes to stop it.
The US government should absolutely do that, but they won't because they defends the interests of big companies rather than the interests of small companies or US citizens.
> even Apple's own executives were sometimes surprised by the internal financial reports.
Was this recorded or just people drawing lines between Epic's expert witness claims and the executives trying to down play them?
That's not how business works. The App Store in current form would not exist without all the collective investment that went into all of Apple's hardware, for instance.
Microsoft Office: Revenue $45B Operating Costs $12B Profit $33B Operating Margin 75%
Google Search Ads: Revenue $175B Operating Costs $45B Profit $130B Operating Margin 75%
> That's not how business works. The App Store in current form would not exist without all the collective investment that went into all of Apple's hardware, for instance.
While technically true, this argument doesn't provide any merit to the discussion. 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.
In the absence of the App Store, the creator would still have access to their patrons via mobile web and payment via the methods already provided by Patreon. The app is merely a convenience - it's a hard sell that this convenience is worth 30% of the creator's revenue through the platform.
> 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 away their other, non-iPhone-primary patrons. Notably, Patreon is forbidden by Apple from making this pricing scheme transparent and up-charging only iPhone users to keep the creator whole.
The only party with power here is Apple - and they are using it to strongarm.
> 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?).
> It cuts both ways. The app store payment disincents consuming content from iPhones (indirectly, as the iPhone-heavy creators raise their prices).
That is not remotely a balanced comparison. An iPhone has more than the purpose of consuming content from Patreon and is unlikely to affect Apple. They are still gaining in this situation.
There is no magical fairy tale being called "the market" balancing the situation here. Just a large corporation exerting control over people through rent-seeking. The only disruption happening is Apple disrupting people being fairly paid for their work so they can take a large of chunk of it instead of being happy making a profit by skimming off the top already.
Being a monopolist is good fun until they storm the Bastille.
Plus more than $20B for the Apple developer fee without which you cannot publish the their stores.
them taking more and rents from their store-related operations is hard to justify from software product-quality perspective; its like a slap in the face
I don't think Apple could actually, unless they could prove to shareholders that it would create more value
> shareholders
Yeah that has to be a good 95% of why businesses do bad things.
The last thing Apple wants is for people to think they've plateaued. Stock starts going down to normal P/E ratios, expensive engineers leave, etc.
I’m surprised they were surprised because operating costs should be pretty much nil. What do they do, pay a few thousand app reviewers, a few hundred software engineers? Pretty sure if they had to, they could operate App Store for a few tens of millions of dollars per year.
All of this could be solved easily if developers were allowed to pass on the apple tax to consumers and advertise discounts for not using the App Store. No one wants to pay more for nothing.
Apple's App Store business model is the same as Nintendo's eShop business model.
Obviously Epic would like to pay lower platform fees to Apple than it pays to Nintendo, but there is no logical reason why it should.
> The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik...
Agreed, there are bad privately held corps, and worse privately held corps, with badness usually proportional to their size and profit.
I really think I might be done with Apple. The only thing keeping me using them is how much I hate Android. The _millisecond_ a competitor arrives, I'm dropping my iPhone like a bad habit.
Off topic, but is there anything specific that you hate about Android? I find it acceptable. I'm trying to cut down my phone usage so maybe I'm more tolerant.
Not OP, but: "acceptable", that's the problem. Also I dislike Google more than Apple.
I'm wondering what adjectives you hope to apply to a phone operating system. I'm content with mine when I don't have to think about it, for which "acceptable" seems about right, and discontent when I do.
GrapheneOS on a Pixel is that competitor. Open source, more secure than Apple, compatible with nearly all Android apps. It's all the positive aspects of Android without the downsides (Google).
> compatible with nearly all Android apps
The "nearly" is the issue. Opting out of the Apple/Google duopoly comes at a great cost.
I've used it for 3 years and the only app I couldn't use has been Google pay/wallet.
Truly is nearly. Some apps (banks) you need to toggle a compat mode.
I keep hoping and wishing for a daily drivable linux phone that's compatible with all the us networks to come along. I'll keep hoping and wishing. Someday I hope we will get there!
Are those number App Store revenue or services revenue ? Because both seems to be inaccurate.
One company's margin, is other company's opportunity.
The problem is that Apple owns the platform and half of the mobile ecosystem. You can't just launch a competitive marketplace which could compete alongside Apple's app store, nor can you launch an alternative operating system. You have to launch a whole new smartphone stack complete with operating system, app distribution and app ecosystem.
Or not use apple.
I also don't use Apple, and I try to avoid the only other alternative by using GrapheneOS instead of an official Android build.
But at some point everything is going to be so closely tied to Google as well that that way of living is also going to become too painful, and at that point "or not use Apple or Google" is a bit like saying "or not use the roads".
This. Doing business with almost any major company is unethical, but Apple sits near the top of the big tech companies people shouldn't do business with. They are not a force for good in the world.
Indeed, that's why the former blocks the latter: not to lose margins to those opportunities
They could lower the rates even more and still afford the government bribes and solid gold tchotchkes, but the whole point of the bribes is to not do that.
Well said. Glad to see this at the top. Google also takes 30%. And I think steam too. This is 100% a regulatory issue.
But competitors to Steam exist: Epic Games Store only takes a 12% cut. Publishers have an option to use other distributors but choose not to.
Sure, and you can buy an android phone and use the play store instead and still get charged 30%. Or you could sideload, but let’s be real 99.9% of users aren’t gonna do that, and similarly most gamers are gonna buy everything on steam.
The exceptions here prove the rule I’m afraid, if anything.
> Publishers have an option to use other distributors but choose not to
They can choose to sell in the store where all users are, or in the store nobody goes.
Correct, but that means that publishers are choosing to distribute via Steam, despite the existence of other options, because Steam's superior features, user base, etc. justify paying that premium. They could distribute on Epic games, or even self-distribute like how Blizzard does, but they choose Steam.
It's not analogous to iOS that has no other options for distribution.
Those margins are pretty normal in software, especially a mature product like that.
But people still use/buy it so why would they cut the cost?
There is no ideological argument for voluntary action here. The entire goal is to force regulators to step in. The debate over 'good vs. bad companies' is just online noise and rhetorical trik, no one on either side of the political spectrum wants these systems to be fixed voluntarily with corporate altruism.
Well said.
But what are they even doing for regulators to have to step in? Making profits from someone selling their product in your market seems pretty valid to me. Are you saying this is anticompetitive to other possible app store storefronts like Google Play or something?
Just to ground the discussion in Apple's criminal behavior a bit, here's some excerpts from a 2025 ruling about Apple's behavior in this regard:
> Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up (the 2024 evidentiary hearing). To unveil Apple’s actual decision-making process, not the one tailor-made for litigation, the Court ordered production of real-time documents and ultimately held a second set of hearings in 2025.
> To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing,and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Apple’s goal: maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, other purchasing mechanisms. Apple’s response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates with full page “scare” screens, static URLs, and generic statements. Apple’s goal: to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court’s Injunction.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
So, I wanted to avoid referring to this case because it undermines any discussion, but if you want to include it, the judge ruled in favor of Apple for nine out of ten claims made by Epic, including 1) Apple's 30% commission is not anticompetitive behavior, and 2) Apple has the right to not allow third-party apps on their platform. Apple, being Apple, attempted to subvert the part about allowing links to other storefronts by adding a 27% commission aas well as a scare page, which is what they are currently in hot water for. However, the overall decision was solidly in Apple's favor regarding the App Store's 30% commission and practices.
> One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive.
Epic is twisting other people's words here. Notice how they quote “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” but not the point about it being anticompetitive. It's because the decision never said that.
If you’re gonna cherry pick from that case, I’m not sure it’s going to go in your favour, as others have demonstrated.
They are not allowing other marketplaces, or creators themselves, to run apps on Apple devices directly.
Why should they have to allow third parties to run apps on their platform? The fact that it is a clear security risk already gives them justification, but even looking past that, Apple is not the only platform that bars users from running third-party software or marketplaces on their products. For example, playstation, xbox, and switch all disallow running unauthorized games on their platforms. What makes Apple different?
No. This is a result of a market failure caused by monopoly power. Regulators must make sure market capitalism works.
I'm not sure what is the basis for your question but using market definition where Google Play and Apple Store are in the same market is not correct (market definition is essential part of any monopoly regulation).
Markets are defined by choice of practice, not by choice in principle.
My question is: what is the basis for asserting that this market failure is due to monopoly power? Is your argument that their excessive profits from the services provided result from anti-competitive behavior? If so, what specific anti-competitive behavior are you referring to?
The specific cited anti-competitive behaviors (from DOJ and EU Commission is) are related to violating anti-steering provisions (companies forbidden for directing towards other payments methods), tying and bundling (in-app purchase requirements), self-preferencing (obvious), "tap-to-pay" monopoly, and blocking third party app-stores.
and that exactly what monopoly allows you to do.
This is all money that is reducing expenditure elsewhere. I get it: capitalism and economics. Yet I still think humanity could do better and I think capitalism itself suffers. Economics theory is broken if it thinks this is good for society in general.
But those profits made possible by actually having other infrastructure parts existing(OS, hardware, marketing, etc).
The $160 billion of cash Apple is sitting on doesn't contribute to any infrastructure.
I think what confuses me is that Apple is taking so much profit that it reduces their profits.
It's a classic direct-indirect management problem. Think about Android for a second. It costs nothing to put an app on their app store. People can make apps for themselves and then just publish because either "why not" or it's an easy way to distribute to friends and family. So basically it is making app creation easy. Meanwhile Apple charges you $100/yr to even put something up on the store, makes it hard to sideload, and consequently people charge for apps, which Apple rejoices as they get a 30% cut (already double dipping: profiting from devs, profiting from the devs' customers).
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMARTPHONES
A smartphone is useless without apps! People frustrated they can't find the apps they want on iPhone? They switch to Android. People on Android want to get away from Google but they can't do half the shit they want to on iPhones (and the other half costs $0.99/mo)? They bite their tongue or rage quit to Graphene.
The only reason this "fuck over the user" strategy works is because there's an effective monopoly.
All of this is incredibly idiotic as the point of a smartphone is that it is a computer that also makes phone calls. We have made a grave mistake in thinking they are anything but general purpose computers. All our conversations around them seem really silly or down right idiotic when you recognize they are general purpose computers. And surprise surprise, the result is that seeing how profitable and abusive the smartphone market can be leads to a pretty obvious result: turn your laptops and desktops into smartphone like devices. Where everything must be done through the app stores, where they lock you out of basic functionalities, where they turn the general purpose computer into a locked down for-their-purposes computer.
The thing that made the smartphone and the computer so great was the ability to write programs. The ability to do with it as you want. It's because you can't build a product for everyone. But the computer? It's an environment. You can make an environment that anyone can turn into the thing they want and they need. THAT is the magic of computers. So why are we trying to kill that magic?
It doesn't matter that 90% of people don't use it that way, and all those arguments are idiotic. Like with everything else, it is a small minority of people that move things forward. A small percentage of players account for the majority of microtransactions in videogames. A small percentage of fans buy the majority of merchandise from their favorite musicians. And in just the same way, it is a small number of computer users (i.e. "powerusers") that drive most of the innovation, find most of the bugs, and do most of the things. I mean come on, how long did it take Apple and Google to put a fucking flashlight into the OS? It was the most popular apps on both their stores for a long time before it got built in. Do you really think they're going to be able to do all the things?
Advocating for regulators to step in is already a value judgement. Why is "high profitability" a cause for regulatory scrutiny? The optimal behaviour in any ecosystem (corporate or natural) is to defend as much territory as is within your power, not to keep only to what covers your "needs". Why have you deemed this behaviour, which is emergent anywhere competition between organisms exists, as in need of regulation?
Apple is succeeding largely on merit, within the bounds of civilized, peaceful competition. Shouldn't we all just be grateful for the contributions they have made to our civilization?
> force regulators to step in
> force
> regulators
That's my whole problem, personally.
What we need much, much less of in this world is government force, especially during these trying times of government force and outreach (something I expected my more left side of the isle colleagues to have finally realized by now).
COIVD really was a test of how much governmental draconianism we would take, and we failed spectacularly, and not only that, but are demanding more government.
So no, we don't need more regulation, especially given this country's history of regulatory capture. We need new solutions.
We don't need "more" government, we need the government to do its job. We need the regulators who have been legally appointed to oversee these areas to actually respond to these behaviors. Regulatory capture is the issue, but the solution isn't less government. It's getting corporate money and lobbying out of the government (Citizens United is to blame for most of our woes), increase the enforcement of anti-corruption laws, and get antitrust back on the table.
I want big corporations to be scared. I want them to fear for their own survival, and to tread lightly lest the sword of damocles fall upon them.
How long until they make the argument that they're entitled to 30% of your salary because you use Apple hardware to do your work?
But what about my banking app! I think it’s only fair Apple take 30% on every transaction I make. After all they put in a huge amount of work validating and making sure my banking app is safe and functional.
Edit: Maybe I am greedy now, but it would be nice if large transactions like say buying a house only would cost me a 15% transaction fee to Apple.
Visa/Mastercard take like 1 or 2%. That's why they cannot compare to Apple...
If they tried to take significantly more, cash would be a lot more popular.
Yet Apple can get away with taking 30% and companies still accept this and push their apps rather than websites.
> Yet Apple can get away with taking 30% and companies still accept this and push their apps rather than websites.
companies and users!
Visa/MasterCard take like 0.3% the rest of the interchange fee goes to the issuing and acquiring banks.
We just got layers and layers of entrenched middlemen (middle corporations) everywhere
Think about it this way: without the app, 100% of your savings would be inaccessible, so it would be only fair if apple took 30% of them...
Large transactions are riskier, let’s give them 45%. After all, I’d really hate to see their margins suffer.
I worry about their finances
Who's downvoting this? When you think online sarcasm is so obvious that no-one could believe it, someone's always there to prove otherwise
Maybe because its not really contributing anything new to the discussion?
They must be looking at the revenue Claude Code is making on Mac and thinking “Why aren’t we getting 30% of that?”
Wouldn’t be surprised if macOS starts locking down CLI tools towards an App Store model too.
Developers are a tricky market for this because they could realistically move to different platforms if stuff like this started to happen. Or at least work on remote machines.
If gaming on Macs ever became popular though this would be a real risk.
Apple fans on the other hand are not a tricky market. They swallow whatever Apple gives them.
It doesn't matter if they are developers or not.
I'm not sure Claude Code is making enough for Apple to take notice & drastically alter their CLI like that? CC has 100-150k users across all platforms, paying $200-1200/yr each. Even if every developer is on the top tier Max plan, and on MacOS, that's $180mn in revenue at Anthropic. So even in the most optimistic scenario, that's only ~$50mn revenue for Apple at a 30% take.
That pales in comparison to the hardware & subscription revenues Apple brings in by being a dev-friendly OS.
Claude code reached $1B in six months in early Dec and given what I am seeing on ground, I wouldn't be surprised if just in last 2 months after that their revenue grew by double.
[1]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-acquires-bun-as-cla...
Source for the numbers? I am asking since Anthropic's revenue is 5+ billions, I'm guessing it's mostly from developers.
There is a $2400 plan as well.
> Wouldn’t be surprised if macOS starts locking down CLI tools towards an App Store model too.
The day that happens is the day Apple sees a mass exodus of developers to Linux, I don't think they'd be that stupid. They enjoy enough goodwill right now as the platform of choice (vs. Windows for those that don't want to run desktop Linux), I can't imagine they'd casually just throw that away.
> 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/
If Claude Code was in the Mac App Store, they would have signed an agreement to do so (offer an in-app purchase option and Apple gets a 30% cut of subscriptions for the first year, 15% after that).
They would also be sandboxed such that the app wouldn't have access to the level of system integration it needs.
Presumably if you buy an AI subscription through an iOS app you also have to pay 30% Apple tax. Nice work for them.
I would expect also that there is a broader revenue sharing agreement for both being a system-integrated search engine and "world knowledge" chatbot (Google and OpenAI being the respective defaults)
It does work like that.
For me personally, I have used this method to spend my Apple gift cards purchased on a discount. Effectively I got a Claude subscription at 15% off. (You could argue this only works because OpenAI/Anthropic charge the same price across web/mobile, and I agree.)
So, as much as I despise Apple's business model, in some sense I have directly benefitted from it (other than stock price).
Hilarious how this is more than my tax rate. My tax rate gets education, healthcare, policing, etc etc.
Oh but you do get policing...
Look at how many different APIs you get as a developer on iOS.
Feels more like a sales tax (VAT) though, which is the same for everyone.
Exactly, not even a progressive tax!
dont give Apple any ideas!
On the other side Apple gets money, so they can make *whole* world better, not just your country.
Think about how many lives were improved just by M* CPUs or Siri
/s
> Think about how many lives were improved just by M* CPUs or Siri
But these were paid for by the hardware purchase.
You joke, but legally they could. If game engines can charge a licence fee as a % of revenue from games developed on those engines, then legally there's not much to stop apple doing the same. Of course consumers and enterprises wouldn't tolerate it, but the barrier is commercial rather than legal.
I've long believes that the requirement to use in-app purchasing was to make such revenue sharing easier to audit - if you can only use Apple's payment system to do certain things (or else your app isn't approved), then Apple doesn't have to worry about things like audits.
Since various countries have regulated the ability to do third party payments from apps, Apple has since added API to launch said payments, to help generate statistics on use so that they can then demand third party auditing that the commissions are still being properly paid.
In the US there was a court decision that they couldn't meter or charge commission, which may very well be walked back and will lead to lots of fun future articles.
Guess it is no different than Docker Desktop charging based on your revenue. The idea being charging based on some second order.
[flagged]
What is absurd is finding yourself paying 30% on every digital item purchased on a smartphone app. It would never even occur to us that Microsoft takes a 30% margin on Steam, yet that is what happens on webtoon apps.
Microsoft threatened to take 30% margin on all Steam transactions. That's why Valve embraced Linux and made the Steam Deck and Steam Machine.
Valve already takes a 30% cut of all Steam transactions. It's just corporations fighting to steal each other's revenue streams.
> Microsoft threatened to take 30% margin on all Steam transactions. That's why Valve embraced Linux and made the Steam Deck and Steam Machine.
This is totally made up.
Let me clarify. Microsoft did not approach Valve and say "give us 30% or else." Valve saw that Microsoft was moving in the same direction of Apple where their devices would be locked down and only run software from their store, felt threatened, and decided they couldn't remain tied to that ecosystem.
Microsoft don't really have an equivalent to iOS so let's compare oranges to oranges: macOS vs Windows.
On macOS, Apple don't take a 30% cut on Steam purchases. Steam take 30% however.
There's a big difference - when you develop an app for iOS or macOS, using Apple's APIs, platform and app store tech, it's reasonable to pay Apple something and they legally can charge.
I don't actually have an opinion on whether 30% or 15% is too much or not. It's factually wrong or illogical arguments that bother me: how can we fight anything when the arguments are just nonsensical.
Apple make plenty of user-hostile decisions, but people need to criticise them reasonably, otherwise they will be ignored by those that might have the influence to change things for the better.
> when you develop an app for iOS or macOS, using Apple's APIs, platform and app store tech, it's reasonable to pay Apple something
Is it?
We spent several decades of the PC world, MSDOS and Windows, with zero platform license fees or approvals. This was hugely beneficial for innovation, and this is why everyone hates the sudden rise of platform landlordism.
You're perfectly entitled to distribute a macOS app with your own paywall, the same as ever. Nothing has changed from that perspective.
Rent-seeking on SaaS platforms is far worse I think, e.g. $30 per month for 10GB of data in a recent offering I was looking at, and who knows where the data are. Some datacenter in a foreign land with a mad king probably.
> You're perfectly entitled to distribute a macOS app with your own paywall
Are you sure the ToS allows that? Given the "anti-steering" rules? Can you point me to an example that isn't by a megacorp?
> $30 per month for 10GB of data in a recent offering I was looking at, and who knows where the data are
That's worse pricing than my mobile contract!
Scroll to the bottom:
https://developer.apple.com/macos/distribution/
Isn't the "outside the app store" bit entirely new, and forced on them by the EU?
Doesn't change that if you distribute inside the app store, the app store rules ban you from any kind of external payment system.
> Isn't the "outside the app store" bit entirely new, and forced on them by the EU?
No it's always been like this.
> Doesn't change that if you distribute inside the app store, the app store rules ban you from any kind of external payment system.
Yes because you're paying for the payment system amongst other things.
Remember when software was sold in a box with a paper manual in a store? Before App Store and steam, retailers and publishers of games and software also took their share of the revenue from the work software developers created. Their cut wasn’t small.
If the government stepped in to regulate the sales of software (to protect developers and consumers?) do you think: A) apps will cost less B) the government won’t want their cut
Yeah but there was a big difference: As a developer you could opt out of that distribution and go your own way. I knew people who sold floppies out of their garage. IBM or whoever made your hardware, and Microsoft or whoever made your OS, could not prevent your users from installing your software on their machine.
Gov't taking a cut from tha App store is already happening [1] and it's a legitimate concern unlike the concept of Apple taking cuts from people's salary (LOL).
[1] https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/02/12/app-store-and-japanese-co...
So they aren't exempt from sales tax in Japan, and they're crying about it?
Can't they add a rent clause to the ToS of MacOS, claiming that any commercial use (work for money) requires commercial licence?
Can Bic add a ToS to using their biros, so 15% of contract value goes to them if it's signed with their pen?
It would likely get voided as unconscionable if they just unilaterally demanded it, but it might hold up in specific circumstances (if the user is well-aware of the salary demand when they accepted the contract, and the user gets some proportionate value out of giving Apple a percentage of salary).
This is based on the controversial Unreal licensing, which is percent of revenue: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/license
It’s reductio ad absurdum to make a point. But you could argue that income from Patreon forms part/all of a creator’s salary.
I don’t agree that this is an Apple hating thread. Its commentary on a pretty despicable action that Apple is taking.
“Despicable” is by an order of magnitude softer word compared to “Apple can legally take your salary”
Sure, Apple is greedy. But it doesn’t deserve what is usually assumed: legal persecution.
> It’s reductio ad absurdum
It's not, it's just factually wrong.
If Apple can legally claim 30% of your salary then a doctor using an iPad to demonstrate results of a scan to a patient has to pay Apple 30% of their consultation fee.
That's reductio ad absurdum.
Lol.
> If Apple can legally claim 30% of your salary then a doctor using an iPad to demonstrate results of a scan to a patient has to pay Apple 30% of their consultation fee.
Apple could absolutely do this. They could say that professional medical use of macOS requires a commercial license, and the price of that commercial licence could be linked to revenue.
Doctors - or rather their hospital IT/procurement departments - would be held to the terms of service they agree to. Far more rigorously than ordinary consumers.
If that were legally enforcable, which is almost certainly not the case, Microsoft and Google could do the same, making your argument moot in this context.
Every software company can do this. Oracle Java is free for personal use but if you use it in prod you have to pay a licence based on the number of employees in your company. Epic games takes 5% of your revenue above a million if you use unreal for a game. Docker desktop requires a paid license if you have over 250 employees or $10 million in revenue.
Let's continue with the reductio ad absurdum - a taxi driver uses their iPhone to navigate. Can Apple take 30% of their revenue?
Absolutely, if the taxi driver signs a contract / agrees to terms of service. What law prohibits them from charging that? This is why open source is so important.
Heard of the word "contract"?
What would make this legally unenforceable?
It made sense in the early days, phone operators were charging up to 90% for the infrastucture to send an SMS, and get a download link to a J2ME/Windows CE/Pocket PC/Symbian/Palm/Blackberry download link to install the app.
So everyone raced to the iOS app store, it was only 30%, what a great deal!
The problem is that two decades later it is no longer that great deal in mobile duopoly world.
It's kind of interesting that while the structure is largely the same, the underlying behaviour/intent has morphed from a disruptor-model into being toxic rent-seeking behaviour.
Isn't it strictly worse that they're already thinking they're entitled to 30% of your salary because your clients use Apple hardware? You can change what you use, you can't change what they use.
That's of course on top of the 30% they take on things you buy using your salary via Apple devices.
and the 30% they take from the things you sell via apple devices, once your work is done.
All the regulators in the world have their sights set on them and they know it. The light is half on already and the music is slowing. This party is soon to be over. It's a last ditch attempt at milking all they can.
Stuff like this is ironic but I do think it's escape hatches like this that will make these tech companies, if they ever go down, go down kicking and screaming. Any platform holder that ever finds themselves in a bad place financially will 100% pull all the levers like this.
Honestly that joke is uncomfortably close to how the logic already works...
30% of my yearly unrealised gains would be fair.
They already do if you're always buying a new apple product
Don't worry, they're ethical because interns will only pay 15%.
They certainly would if they could.
Don't give them any ideas haha
Come on, if you work on a MacBook then Tim Apple deserves at least one of your kidneys. It's only fair.
30% of profit from stock sales initiated on Apple hardware should automatically go to Apple. Because why not. It's a digital sale, there is no physical goods changing hands. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. /s
The wealthiest company in the world really needs that last little bit from those Patreon creators who have it way too easy in their lives. It's not as if the people that take that meager bit of cash are going to invest it in Apple stock so they're going to have to pay up.
The Mafia can learn a thing or two from Cook.
This is the machine. The behavior is much larger than any CEO or even trillion dollar company.
What are you trying to say actually? That we can't fault apple for a decision they're making?
When they do something marginally nice: "omg apple is so great :D" when they do something stupid: "poor apple is being forced by the market :'("
The CEO could easily stop this.
And the board would replace them. It’s their fiduciary duty.
The board could argue that it's damaging to the company's brand and long term bottom dollar to charge such usurious fees and fire the CEO for taking such a harsh stance with app developers.
They could do a lot of things.
Boards are not some sort of unelected shadow government that exists to depose leaders if they aren't squeezing enough blood from the stone. Appointing a new CEO is time consuming and carries enormous market ramifications that could backfire on shareholders if it goes wrong, putting their own board seats at risk. Stability and peaceful transitions of power benefit everybody in this prisoner's dillema. A new CEO will be shopped around to the public years before they actually take power so there aren't any surprises when they do.
The CEO willing to do something like that would never find themselves in that position. One becomes a CEO through a process that filters those kinds of people out and builds the remaining into willing participants.
This. The board and the shareholders are the ones with the real power.
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.
No, the claim is that if a CEO would make the decision not to pursue a particular revenue stream that the company would be sued. This is bullshit.
To everything you can find exceptions, no one's arguing what you're claiming. And you have to read between the lines here, a board doesn't have to remove a CEO for a decision, what I'm trying to point out is the CEO knows their job, and the board knows their job. Just like there's things you know if you do you won't get a good pay raise or bonus (or gasp, get fired), the CEO knows how to avoid that in the long term. The board also knows what they must do over the long term to keep their nice board seat. No one has to get sued to get the message.
I’m not claiming CEOs are legally required to chase every conceivable revenue dollar or that they’d lose a lawsuit if they don’t. Corporate law doesn’t work that way, and no serious person thinks it does.
What does exist is a well-understood governance and incentive regime: boards evaluate CEOs on long-term shareholder value, compensation is tied to financial performance, and strategic restraint has to be justified in those terms. That doesn’t require lawsuits, and it doesn’t require explicit mandates. It’s how large public companies are run.
The fact that Apple could charge 50% and chooses not to doesn’t refute this — it just shows that extraction is constrained by regulation, backlash, and platform risk. But once those constraints weaken, dominant platforms reliably increase extraction. That’s an empirical pattern, not a legal theory.
> That’s an empirical pattern, not a legal theory.
That's fine
> It’s their fiduciary duty.
Then don't make legal claims.
No one has to get sued because nobody will get sued and if they were sued they would win the suit.
https://www.legislate.ai/blog/does-the-law-require-public-co...
I guess that's how you become the wealthiest company in the world.
no wonder Tim Cook hangs around Trump a lot.
Both employ mafia tactics
Sometimes I think the 30% was supposed to be 3% originally, and no one noticed the decimal was in the wrong place when they shipped it, and then people paid it anyway, so they kept it.
30% is just so unreasonable that it would be totally understandable if someone would believe this.
In 2008, the app store was launching, and physical software was still sold at Targets, Walmarts and other large retailers. A 30% margin was roughly what retailers would make off of physical software sales. By setting the App Store to be the same, Apple was signaling to retailers that they were not trying to undercut their margin, and keep a healthy relationship with them.
And it was a great deal compared to the 90% cut you had to give phone carriers to highlight your java apps
The carriers were taking about 70% in tariffs and fees even without you bribing them to get better positioning. That’s why all the mobile app people rushed to Apple in the early days. They could actually turn a profit on the App Store.
If probably be retired now if I wasn’t already so burnt out on how SMS tariffs worked at the time. Utterly opaque and on a delay. They basically wrote you a check for however much they felt like each month.
Essentially the reseller arm of carriers at that time was just a money funnel from VCs to the telcos. They were eating their own young and I was full up on the bullshit.
No one was buying boxed software in 2008. The second we had broadband, call it 2002-ish, everyone was downloading everything. For many of us that began in the 90s before we had broadband. Overnight downloads over 56K phone modems was already overtaking boxed purchases. More people downloaded Netscape in 1995 than bought it boxed.
Not disagreeing with your general point, but Netscape is probably a bad example here. People who wanted Netscape would have been much more likely to know how to download and wanted to download it. Compared to, say, video editing software, which would have much less correlation with web users back in 1995 when not everyone was a web user.
It was 2008; "big box" software was largely seen as obsolete to the vast majority of developers. Marketing was done online, and the benefit of investing in retail had stopped outweighing the consequences. Online updates quickly became the norm, and service features supplanted point-of-sale business model (much like Apple's double-dip into microtransaction profits).
Apple chose 30% because they knew they weren't a retailer. You can hunt for a cheaper Diablo II copy online or at Wal-Mart, but not on iPhone.
> It was 2008; "big box" software was largely seen as obsolete to the vast majority of developers.
Well, I'm just reporting it as I understood their decision in the moment. I was working on The Sims at that time, and I assure you, retailers still mattered to us bigly.
And what you quoted is my opinion as a consumer. Blizzard got it working in 1996, Valve figured it out in 2003 - the industry was moving on.
EA was an outlier, and by the time they capitulated and started Origin it was so bad that people regret signing up for the service. GoG didn't have this issue, Valve didn't have that issue, EA did.
I think console games were the exception to this. It took until recently with the PS5 to get a diskless console model.
Apple see the iPhone as a game console, not that anyone else thinks of it in that way.
Steam, the Kindle Store and iTunes all had similar sales cuts since before the app store launched in 2008.
It’s egregious now but at the time it wasn’t crazy because software developers often made way less than that when going through traditional publishing routes. Plus everyone was just happy to be making money off the new platform.
"sometimes I make up false stories to make me feel better about my favorite company :D"
I don't even own any apple products.
Nah, they probably used pre-existing marketplaces like steam as an example of what "they could get away with"
[flagged]
How does one even come about creating a thought like this?
Please explain.
this is sarcasm, right?
Yes
seems like no one else got that. tough crowd.
2035: Apple takes 30% of my Patreon, Google matched it through their "Competitive Parity Agreement," and the EU fined them both €2 billion which they paid in 45 minutes of revenue then raised fees to 32% to cover legal costs.
The real innovation was convincing us this was inevitable.
You naively assumed that they would actualy disbourse 2 G€ in payments for those fines.
Reality disagrees: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2024/12/13/data-regulato...
You can be the patron of a creator and Apple in the same time! Jokes aside, this is awful...I like/use Apple products but this unacceptable, I hope everyone dodges this and pays through the website
Another outstanding decision vetted by Tim Cook.
In all seriousness, finance people see everything through the lens of margins and money primarily. Since any company's function is to deliver value to its shareholders, if allowed, bean counters will scorch the earth for it.
Ultimately, this is at odds on how Jobs approached things, i.e., money was not the end all be all.
Apple's 30% tax was introduced under Steve Jobs and there were no small business exemptions back then. Jobs died in 2011. It's time to stop extrapolating what Jobs would be doing 15 years later in 2026 if he were still around. Could be the same, could be better, could be worse.
In a time were operators where charging up to 90% for other stores.
Those with listings of SMS codes for which app to download, depending on the phone OS.
So it was a great deal back in 2008.
You are talking about phone apps, I'm talking about "software licenses sold over the internet".
If Apple adopted the 90%, they would still be criticized.
The fact remains that it was a very stupid system in 2008, and lowering the percentage doesn't obviate Apple's perverse incentives.
It isn't 'You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain', it's 'You either die a hero or live long enough for people to realize you are a villain'. While it's ultimately meaningless to speculate on what the dead would do if they were living, Steve Jobs in life did have plenty of belief and made plenty of decisions that are perfectly inline with what we are seeing in 2026 and there is no particular reason to believe he would not just be up there with the worst of them.
Jobs was a greedy bastard like all the other CEOs. The difference is that he also had mostly good taste as far as products go.
At that time 30% was not something you would consider high in contrast to the situation before the advent of app stores.
This is outrageously wrong. Back in 2011, the pricing model for "an app in your pocket" was 99 cents. The universal pricing model of apps was a one-time fee and the pricing range was that of an mp3 roughly. 30% of that is a lot. App sales worked only in volume.
If you sold software over the internet, you had PayPal, which had a flat fee of $0.35 + 1.7% or so and if your shareware was $30, the transaction fee essentially was ~$1. Stripe had roughly the same fee when they launched. You had more traditional credit card merchants and when I inquired one in Germany back in 2010, it was more or less in the same ballpark (~10%).
In Europe, you could also just get money wired, which cost you something like 0-10 cents.
30% for payment processing were always extremely high.
Edit: The only thing where you had no other options was when you tried to sell stuff on the internet for $1, because the flat fee part of credit card processors would eat up all of that. Apple indeed helped here a little bit, because it was always 30% and no fixed part.
I was thinking about something comparable, where there is a digital storefront, payment processing, security, delivering, installing on all my devices and so on...
Steam comes to mind. They take 30% (and I think 5% for credit card or whatever).
So I do not think that "outrageously wrong" is characterizing my remarks adequately.
Steam is fundamentally different in very important ways.
Your phone is general purpose, steam is focused on a narrow band of market
The iOS store adds nothing but cost to the purchasing process, with hilariously terrible discoverability and sorting, steam makes navigating and discoverability breezy and easy
Your phone is arguably not an optional part of your life, whereas nobody ever missed an important call because they weren't on steam
Steam does not take any money from apps or companies for transactions it was not involved in. Here, and in other cases, the costs of doing business with apple extend to people who have no relationship with apple at all
It's not a "processing fee". It's an distribution/access/market fee for the captive audience that Apple has spent tens of billions developing and supporting.
If you think you can make any money selling software on the internet and paying nothing other than $0.35 + 1.7%, think again.
Yeah I heard this before, but no, it is mostly a processing fee. The reality is:
- Developers helped to make Apple the platform it is today.
- Apple had their 30% fee when the App Store was MUCH smaller. It's not like that fee came only after they had the audience.
- Apple will do zero marketing for you unless you are already successful.
- Apple doesn't earn money with the most popular free apps, but still hosts them. They could charge by traffic, by downloads, whatever, but they won't.
- Apple will charge you if you make money in the app. They will force you to use their payment processor if you want to make money.
So, it is 100% a processing fee and everything else either came later or isn't congruent with what they actually charge money for.
Just as an aside, everything here is true of Android as well, and I think the cut was higher (or there were more intermediaries taking a bit as well): I priced an app $1.47 in 2010 so I'd get about $1 on every purchase.
True, the Google cut was also 30%, but they didn't make such a fuss about "no links to website" and stuff like that. They didn't even have a review process for a long time.
I think you could if apple didn’t force the App Store. Most people discover apps through other web sites, not through the App Store.
> you had PayPal, which had a flat fee of $0.35 + 1.7% or so
PayPal also offered a "micropayments" rate (that I used in Cydia), wherein they charged $0.05+5% (which is much better for payments under $12).
Processing fees were way less than 30% before the App Store. And considering how overrun the App Store now is with junk apps there is basically no service Apple provides other than taking money.
Is bluffing how you want to show up?
Tim Cook is usually good at politics, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Nobody other some CNBC guests really gets too upset when they take 30% from tinder, music or mobile gaming companies. And those types of apps run by unpopular large companies make up the majority of App Store revenue.
However, newspapers and content creators are popular in a way that carries political weight. It'd be wise for Apple exempt these categories and write off the few hundred million in forgone revenue as a political expense.
For example allowing the NYT or Joe Rogan to have nice paid apps with no fees would be a much more effective use of money than the same amount in political donations.
Apple doesn't do partner exceptions (one of the complaints Epic had about working with them is that Apple wouldn't negotiate lower rates with companies, unlike the game consoles.)
They do have carve outs in the agreement, such as the 'reader' exception. Newspapers I believe also fall under the 'reader' exception.
I have suspected for a while that the 15%-after-the-first-year subscription rate drop was a carve out targeted specifically at trying to retain Netflix IAP. However, Netflix was able to operate without IAP because of the "reader" exception.
If it is really so unacceptable, why don't you stop buying apple products?
Just stop publishing the app, not every little thing needs an app. What the use for the app anyway? Notifications and apple pay?
I'm running a small service, sub 150 users, no online signup kind of business, B2B. Small EU country. 95% of users ask 'do you have an mobile app?' in first 5 minutes of onboarding. Telling them how to install a PWA (and what it is and so forth) is an uphill battle. Unfortunately App Stores rule the non technical crowd.
This is not an accident. This is exactly why Apple (and Google also) have made the PWA experience bad for years. They must force users to believe their app store is the only source of programs.
For Apple, sure. But Google has been leading efforts to make the PWA experience good. In origin trial right now is the ability for websites to install PWAs: https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/....
This would make it much easier to find and install web apps than the current method.
To many users, an app seems to be perceived as the blessed way to access the web. While on a mobile, they are mostly a way to organize symlinks or bookmarks. Except, off course a web browser does its best to protect the user while most apps don't.
Meanwhile I continue doing the Lords work by telling kids that apps are not the internet. Hopefully, that 95% percentage will eventually decrease.
It's not users who are pushing this. It started off with just superfluous but optional apps of websites. Now every year I find there is something I used to be able to do, which I now must own a smartphone to do. And it's not just getting discounts at coffee chains, it's increasingly stuff like accessing healthcare plan benefits, or verifying my identity for banking
A few sites throw up a blocking screen to download the app, which disappears once you spoof a desktop UA. But the big problem is businesses now having no web interface at all
Very good point, though I believe it's both market push and consumer expectation.
Because we have such limited control over our devices, they effectively provide the security of a jail locking down what users can do. That is appealing from a healthcare or banking perspective because it obfuscates the client-server API and gives exact control over the UI. As a bonus, the coffee chain gets to glean lots of details from your phone that would be unavailable in a browser.
As individuals we can do little more that push back: don't let yourself be trapped by coffee chains (go to a different one) and bother your bank's service line about having to use their app. The rest is up to government intervention, I fear.
>To many users, an app seems to be perceived as the blessed way to access the web. While on a mobile, they are mostly a way to organize symlinks or bookmarks. Except, off course a web browser does its best to protect the user while most apps don't.
That is an education problem. What do school computer courses teach these days? Do schools even have computer literacy classes anymore? Do they still teach students about the internet?
The OS is what protects the user. Have you ever seen the prompts asking the user if they want to share their location?
This made me realize, Firefox needs to create a launcher that just creates PWAs out of bookmarks (or vice versa). That way, people get the "app feel" without needing to download every single app.
Why do they need to install a PWA?
We do mobile friendly Web UIs, that is enough.
Their customes, employees, go to the respective company website, get a responsive UI for their device, done, the services require to be online anyway.
It’s about convenience in most cases; an “app” to tap on, not a URL to remember and enter or a bookmark to save, name, file, and locate.
Just like apps in general, PWAs are mostly a mobile heavy modality. Bookmarks and the browser is largely still fine on laptop/desktop, but even there you see the app design language start prevailing with things like bookmarks and “recent sites” being presented like app icons.
Even if it's not a PWA, on both iPhone and Android you can create an "app icon" that will open a URL in a chromeless window. It's as simple as tapping "Add to home" from your browser.
So you get your "app" to tap on.
It's not about power users. It's about regular users and the patterns they have learned.
The mobile ecosystem was built in a way to funnel all users into apps. That's the experience that is optimized for use, that's the experience users feel safe and secure. Barriers were put in place on what apps are even allowed to do (like not having alternative app stores, or a browser in iOs that is not just a webview of Safari). This created an enviroment where developers and companies are forced to develop to this ecosystem, and pay the Apple tax, since that's where the users are. And an alternative system is impossible to be created since Apple uses it's power at the hardware and operating system level to make alternatives impossible.
And someone will probably come and say that this is all users choice to be locked down in the walled garden. That the walled garden is keeping the users safe, so therefore it is only fair that Apple gets to capture 30% of all digital economical activity.
I swear it is so alien to me. Tapping on an app is equivalent to tapping on a link in my bookmarks.
You could even have a button on website to install an icon on the launcher which goes directly to the site in a webview
[dead]
So they can potentially work offline and deliver push notifications.
Very few applications actually need push notifications, a large majority is only annoying users with upselling, or user engagement.
They said that the users are asking for it.
The users are asking for an app on the app store, not a PWA.
Notifications.
Aka upselling and user engagement.
Some things I do want to get notifications about, including from Patreon, whose notifications are perfectly fine, configurable with appropriate granularity. I don’t get any unwanted notifications there.
There may be a time where we have to push back, though, and this may be it. "There is no app" may sound terrifying now, but once we've educated users, it will only get less scary, until we might actually claim back some ownership of our own stuff from the likes of Apple.
This may just be more of a design and communications challenge for you, than your users. I have seen several design templates that use various forms of visuals to assist the user through the “add to Home Screen” process, which is just three steps; Share—-> More —-> Add to Home Screen. It Is arguably even a faster process than going through the App Store, even if users may be more familiar with it.
You could accompany it with some copy explaining how it keeps the service efficient and affordable, i.e., possible stating if you were to offer an app you would have to increase the price by 75% to pay Apple their fee and for the extra costs.
I suspect other arguments for PWAs would not really matter, like that you have no need to track them or use other abilities an app affords, etc. Most people only care about very few things engineers actually care, let alone know about.
I’ve always been an advocate of PWAs whenever it makes sense and will even design and architect to that objective. But even when I would deal with clients, I think the real “up hill battle” is that apps allow for higher fees and charges because they’re more work and come with greater expenses for for-profit apps, so there has been very little incentive to spread general user awareness about the “add to Home Screen”/PWA.
It’s a bit of a paradox, but I guess that seems to be an under-appreciated driver in something like “advanced consumer capitalist economies”, where the “rational actor” simply does not exist anymore.
What kind of users are these? Power-users or normal users (Android etc.) or dum..Apple users?
Because in my circle, power-users and beyond. Everybody is angry with apps needed for everything, you want buy bread in store, "do you have our app?" It's a meme here. And in our local subreddit, 600k users. Sentiment is the same.
We also tried to bypass stores apps with generating new accounts and distributing QR/cards for free to everyone. It was kinda popular.
And problems are more real with each day, eg.: scammers have their work way easier, since dumb users can take a huge loan directly from banking app in their phone.
Also small EU country, btw.
By definition power users and beyond are a minority
BTW, you don't need the app store for that. You can use Firebase App Distribution which doesn't require you to go through the review process.
Basically you just ask their email address and add it to a list in Firebase. Upload your ipa to firebase and the user will receive an email with a link to download
Not sure I understand. So people don't use websites anymore?
Specifically, do people not use websites that have rich/complex data driven functionality anymore?
If they do, I'm wondering what determines whether an application is seen as needing a mobile app vs being ok as a regular web app.
>95% of users ask 'do you have an mobile app?' in first 5 minutes of onboarding
Did you ask them why?
Ehh. OnlyFans is a multi-billion dollar mobile business that has no app.
Clients and customers will not stand for this. I don’t agree but I’ve seen it enough times now it doesn’t surprise me. They want an app, doesn’t matter if you have an identical web-based version that does the exact same thing, they want an app.
I write cross platform apps using Vue/Quasar (previous Angular/Ionic, and before that Titanium), I have put up a web-based version of their app (as a fallback and as an early MVP) and it’s like pulling teeth to get anyone to even play with it. Then you put an app up on TestFlight and suddenly they are using it.
And that’s just trying to get the to use the web while I’m still setting up crap for a “native” app. The idea of not having an app is a non-starter.
Again, I don’t agree with them, I’m just telling you what it’s like out there if you are developing software for other people. An app brings “prestige”, they want be able to say “we have an app”. And no, saving a webpage to the home screen is not a viable alternative (trust me, I’ve tried). Clients and customers reject that and there are extra limitations with that approach (or there were last time I tried, around using the camera feed, things that work fine in mobile Safari).
OK, but you sound like you consult for businesses. Who may not be rational. That doesn't necessarily mean end users are demanding an app. They could be, but your anecdote here doesn't support that conclusion. Patreon's clients are end users.
Apps are usually built so people can't skip ads. Its the only reason to have an app. Other than esoteric reasons like "we also have an app because x,y,z also have apps".
I don't think that applies to Patreon which, as far as I know, doesn't have any ads in the first place?
The app might make it easier for them to enforce DRM-like behaviors to prevent people from pirating creators content, but I strongly suspect people aren't doing that on iOS regardless.
Yep, it's the driving force why I rarely install apps. If the mobile site doesn't work well, it's a good filter that I shouldn't use it. (Doom scrolling trap).
For those that are not aware, on Android you can install Firefox and Ublock-Origin. Life saver!
And for iOS, Orion.
Most of them still source their ads from a known domain so you can easily block them using DNS.
That might be easy but its stuff most people dont know how to do. Its mostly a war on ad blocks.
I work on a website that doesn't have any mobile-specific features, new users ask me all the time why we don't have an app.
My sister and my parents basically ~only read newspapers from their apps, despite it being static text with some images.
I don't know how, but Google and Apple are really good at nudging people to use apps instead of websites.
We really need to build more awareness for PWAs (Progressive web apps). Users (and developers) need to be educated on
- how to install them
- what advantages (and disadvantages) they have. In particular regarding censorship and privacy!
Apple and Google need to be pressured to make PWAs
- easier to install
- more capable
- less buggy (Mobile Safari in particular).
If your app's needs can be met with a PWA, you owe it to your users to offer one!
Here are a few PWA showcase links:
https://pwa-showcase.com/#/all-cards
https://whatpwacando.today/
And a lazy AI-generated list of things that PWAs can do today on top of the things a normal web page can do:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/make-a-list-of-all-things-p...
Hard agree. I hate it when a website force me to get an app now. I feel like websites have matched apps in terms of feel-good on mobile that I don’t really use apps anymore
I use the Patreon app. It's great. I get to see stuff from my favorite creatives weeks (sometimes months) early, and ad-free. Since many of them are youtubers and I don't pay google to show me less ads, this is a huge value prop. And, the Patreon app can cast videos to my TV, so it's really a complete experience.
I don't see anything there that isn't also a valid description of the Patreon website.
If your TV supports AirPlay, you just tap the icon on a video in Safari.
My TV doesn't support Airplay, and I have an Android.
Does the 30% cut only apply to patrons who subscribe within the app? I’m assuming yes, but just checking since I haven’t seen confirmation of this.
Apps are more sticky. Users forget about websites more easily
Patreon isn't something you need to be checking all the time, though, unless you patronise a LOT of people. It can pretty much be a "setup and forget" kinda deal.
A lot of people pay for the exclusive content which is curated on Patreon and their app.
Oh, fair enough — I've only known Patreon the 'open' way before. So the Patreon app is actually an exclusive publisher of some content? Do they actually market that feature?
Nearly every Patreon creator I know of has subscription tiers with exclusive content. Posts can require a minimum tier to view them, creator pages list the tiers you can join, and your feed teases you posts you could access if you joined the right tier from creators you follow.
But not exclusive to the app, as far as I know it's just another interface to that same exclusive content available through the website.
Discussion here started on whether users check apps more often than websites and whether Patreon is the kind of platform that one might want to check often for new content.
I'm not sure how has the goalpost here moved to app-exclusivity, I understood exclusive here to mean "exclusive to Patreon" as opposed to supporting a creator that posts everything for free somewhere else, which is the use case that made that one user assume one doesn't check on Patreon often.
Also, mobile browsers easily cut out background audio so the website is nearly useless on a phone for audio posts compared to the app, as much as I'd prefer it.
They specifically said "app" which is why I interpreted it as exclusive to the app.
The other way around is a little confusing as a question because that's the primary purpose of Patreon and is mentioned on the homepage marketing (multiple payment tiers with exclusive content).
I should have probably said: "[...] exclusive content which is curated on [the creators] Patreon and [accessible to the user via the web browser or] their app."
Hope this clears things up. My main point was that there is in fact an incentive for users to check the app beyond setting up payment and forgetting about it. Even if it is not the only way such content is available, it certainly is a convenient one.
I'm willing to consider that they moved the goalpost and not you, but I still don't get how has this thread diverged.
I too got confused by oneeyedpigeon's question but I assumed from their claim about it being "setup and forget" that they simply don't know much about it.
You're half right; I just use Patreon differently, that's all. Upon reading your original comment, I remembered about the exclusive content, but that's something that's never personally interested me. I do use Patreon exclusively with a desktop browser, but I don't visit the site all that often because I tend to just subscribe to support a creator, then leave.
It's highly unlikely for someone to use the internet in 2020s but be unaware that Patreon is a thing.
Don’t need an app for Apple Pay
I think they could get pretty far with a PWA, but there are legitimate arguments to go native. For use cases like podcasts, where users can download them ahead of time, it seems like Safari limits storage to 1GB [0]. Plus playing background audio might not be as good an experience.
[0] https://web.dev/articles/storage-for-the-web
I use the app for its native podcast integration. The RSS URL also works but I have yet to find a decent RSS client that will synchronise progress across devices well.
Funnily enough I stopped using the Patreon app for podcasts with the big rewrite a while back where it became almost unusable and switched to Overcast instead.
Serving ads and tracking
Its the convenience. 1 or 2 button clicks from the home screen to open "the app".
Sure you could do it in a browser, but half the time the credentials dont cache, or you have to waste 4 clicks and 20 seconds finding a bookmark.
They want convenience. For better or worse.
Because apps are the lowest-friction path to users. If you publish a tool that targets an audience of more than a very specific niche of people, you'll get people asking for an app literally every day. My inbox used to be full of them.
That's not a reasonable solution. Have you used the Patreon app? I use it regularly on Android, and have dozens of audio podcast files downloaded through it.
What is the use of an app that could be the website? Easy: Circumventing the protections a web browser offers your vict.. ah.. users.
I used to subscribe to some podcasts that were distributed to subscribers via the app.
> What the use for the app anyway?
Works offline?
Sure, if your app has something worthwhile to do offline.
It allows you to download Patreon-exclusive videos for e.g. viewing it on a flight, similar to how Youtube does it. It's literally the only reason I have it installed as an app.
I've never seen a PWA do that feature well.
PWA also work offline.
a) does it actually work offline (seems unlikely for a payment app, although I guess it could batch stuff)?
b) if so, does it work any better than a web app can offline?
yeah for entertainment content you just cant get away with it sadly
I mean, the Patreon app has a podcast player in it... can't do that on a webpage
I still can't believe developers love to work for this feudal overlord. They are building a wall around our profession. Have a little foresight and move your business elsewhere.
It's not so much that I love giving 30% to Apple, and more that there is no way to move your business elsewhere because Apple monopolizes mobile app distribution.
And the other half of the mobile app market is monopolized by Google who copies the pricing model while delivering even worse (if any) service to developers.
It's either getting out of mobile apps or paying up.
This is not going to change without drastic steps by regulators, which both Apple and Google fight tooth and nail.
It's not just about making apps. Anything you do for this company is going to backfire at some point and hurt us.
This even includes developing open source tools for MacOS.
And even if it doesn't backfire it is largely a wasted effort.
You know some of us remember Mac System [7|8|9] and how MSFT pretty much ruled everything (Apple had low %).
We kept working on the platform and developing tools and things changed. Of course Apple is a lot more powerful than MSFT back then and the general population is their target.
Apps bad. Web good.
Why did we let mobile go down the one-app-per-website path?
When iPhone came out the sentiment was clearly opposite. The “sweet solution” was ridiculed and workarounds found. When web caught up, it was plagued with self inflicted performance issues. And eventually Apple decided to not invest in good PWA support.
I was an app advocate for a long time, now I made a PWA and it’s maybe 90% there. But you still get behaviors that you can not fix.
IMO the worst however is products that have a fully functional website, but refuse to let you use it (e.g.: Instagram)
Yes. It's improved now, but the mobile web was bad for a long time. The early days of Android experienced a "web-first" ecosystem by force, as lazy businesses just threw a webview around their site, and it was awful
Web is much better when the data should be public. Apps are much better when any kind of data privacy is required.
The trouble is, market forces always try and push things the other way.
The Reddit App for example is totally unnecessary. It's just public web content and should be a website.
SaaS on the other hand shouldn't really be a thing at all. I have no idea why anyone thinks it's a good idea for their private data and app state to be on a cloud somewhere they don't control.
Note that this does not preclude the use of cloud services that users can control e.g. by specifiying trusted endpoints. I'm trying to build the idea of "data locality first" software. I.e. you know where your data are and where they aren't.
> Why did we let mobile go down the one-app-per-website path?
Because the web is still barely usable for anything more complex than showing a few lines of static text and an image?
Because for almost as long as (modern) mobile apps exist the web was even less usable?
Because even now you can whip up a fast complex mobile app with 60fps animations and native behaviours probably in minutes? While on the web you're lucky if you can figure out which state/animation/routing library du jour isn't broken beyond all hope?
I might be in the minority but I have a really hard time using iOS and their apps in general (I use Android).
I struggle (and mostly curse) to figure out what swipe gesture to use to get simple stuff to just work. Not super sure all the 60fps animations and wizz-bang behaviours are being used the way you think they are.
#include<"old-man-yells-at-clould-meme">
Android isn't web either, and you're fine with using it. It's only familiarity.
I have the same issues doing anything on Android.
I strongly prefer apps. The thing that goes wrong here is: Duopoly bad. Competition good.
Since app distribution is not a fair market anymore, it needs to be regulated. Either the fees have to go down close to cost or alternative app stores should be allowed. And not the malicious compliance version of it (as Apple is trying in the EU).
I actually love Apple for pushing this matter this hard and sticking to its guns. This will bring in more regulatory scrutiny not just in the U.S. but in other countries as well. That will force Apple to give up (maybe in a decade or so) this practice of arbitrary rules and squeezing the last penny from others.
Thanks a lot, Eddy Cue, for all that you do to bring Apple down to its knees!
In the U.S. I wouldn't expect meaningful regulation from an administration that accepts bribes in the form of literal gold nuggets.
Tim Cook has been spending a lot of time sucking up to Donald Trump recently, so I think the U.S. federal government will only be assisting Apple
So in about a trillion or two dollars of revenue’s time, then.
Just do what we all do to dodge this, have the Account management and purchasing abilities sit inside an embedded browser window that opens up from a button push in the app. Yes it adds a little barrier but with Apple Pay it is a very small barrier and the juice is worth the squeeze.
Don’t they forbid this? Spotify couldn’t even link to their website in the US lol
This was a result of the Apple vs Epic case, external payment processors avoiding the fee were enabled in the US in May 2025.
If it was enabled, why can Apple still demand 30% cut here? Couldn’t Patreon just switch to external payment processors citing the Epic case?
They'd have to require all current subscriptions be cancelled and the re-upped with the new payment processor, no? That's gunna be really costly
But then again to avoid a 30% fee.. probably worth it
They don't have to "cite the Epic case", it's just functionality available to everyone now. Your app is no longer blocked from approval for including an external payment provider.
They'd actually have to do it though and that could lead to a large loss of revenue for themselves and their subscribers.
Because Patreon doesn't want to do that. They could.
_in the US_
In practice I’ve seen apps just game the system by (1) using IAP using the normal flow, and (2) giving user a button unrelated to purchasing that would open a new WebView, which just happens to contain a purchase button.
Spotify does link to their website to sign up in the US...
Or add a 45% apple tax afyer they click buy. E.g. costs $100, price comes up as.$100 with added apple tax as line item. total $145.
Click here to avoid apple tax takes you to web page if allowed.
Not allowed. They ban your app immediately if you inform people they are robbing them!
This and the practice of forcing you to use same pricing on different platforms should just be made illegal and it would fix so much of this.
I could be wrong but seem to remember this being explicitly disallowed by Apples terms
Except the juice is for you and the squeeze is for your customers.
And it's still a net loss.
I don't get it. Apple is the top 3 most valuable companies in the WORLD. THE WORLD. They act like a greedy friend that would ask you to pay back $1.54 for a meal of $1500, because you ordered a side of fries which they did not eat.
Aren't they making the majority of their money from selling hardware and iCloud subscriptions? Why they go on and milk developers, who make apps FOR THEIR ECOSYSTEM?!
Maybe that's exactly how you become one of the most valuable companies.
Good thing GenAI is about to destroy capitalism, finally!
Even the stupid many headed hydra can't survive when an 8 year-old kid has a super intelligence capable of autonomously manufacturing a bio weapon.
Except BigSilicon is the new capital needed to drive GenAI.
You get it though. They ARE the top 3 most valuable company in the world. How do you think they got there? Greed all the way down.
> greedy friend that would ask you to pay back $1.54 for a meal of $1500
30% is not that.
$1500 represents the money you've already given them to purchase the hardware. You already overpay for that - fine - then they demand a 30% cut from $5 you're giving to a struggling independent creator. It's pure greed coming from one of the richest companies in the world.
Analogy =\= Precise Maths
There is a difference between paying 30% and 0.1% that goes beyond "precise maths".
It's an egregious share, and Apple is making an estimated $30 billion a year with this, at a margin perhaps more than twice as high as on iPhone sales.
woosh
What don't you get?
They are greedy because Apple fans would by a turd in a box if it had an Apple logo.
If I was in charge of Apple I would do the same thing. In fact, I would likely increase the Apple cut to 40%. People would pay, they like their slick toys.
The developers will continue to make apps for their ecosystem regardless.
After the $1k monitor stand I don't doubt Apple can get away with selling ANYTHING.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/mx5n3ll/a/pro-stand
Interestingly, Patreon doesn't give creators an option of "Just don't accept donations for us from Apple users" instead, which is what my old project (SQLite Browser / DB Browser for SQLite) would have gone with if available. :(
I've instead handed the reins to others, so I don't have skin in this game any more. ;)
Apple generally frowns upon things like that. At one point they wouldn't even let you disclose in your UI that Apple was taking a 30% cut of transactions, it was against the rules to do so.
Patiently waiting for a mandatory 30% fee on every transaction made with iOS banking software. Maybe that'll put a definitive stop to forcing mobile "apps" with jailbreak detection on customers and have banks think twice before crippling the functionality of their websites.
Please Apple, make this happen.
I just use the bank's website.
Many banks require you to two-factor authenticate with an app on your phone.
I've yet to encounter one in the US, but I suppose that would make me install it.
Which banks do you use? I’m looking to switch away from Chase (which does this).
It’s a surprisingly hard thing to search for online…
Capital One now for a while and a local credit union. Amex does provide this as an option but supports SMS as well.
>Which banks do you use? I’m looking to switch away from Chase (which does this).
Do you mean SMS codes or a Chase Bank App?
I have to deal with the former because I auto-delete cookies when I close tabs and use Multi-account containers on Firefox.
I've never been required to install any application (Chase branded or otherwise) on my phone in order to use the Chase website. I'll note that I've been a Chase customer since they acquired Chemical Bank in 1996.
Am I missing something important here? If so, I'd love to hear about it.
Chase allows both SMS and their app to be the 2nd factor; I dislike both of those options and would much rather TOTP
They're all going to move that way - it's sort of fundamental to PassKey. It can be done with just a laptop and their built in hardware but I suspect that since everybody has a mobile phone the UX will be built around that more often than not.
I quite like it though. At one of my banks I don't even use a password. My browser has the right material (from a prior authn) and then it pushes a validation request to my phone and with FaceID I'm in.
> then it pushes a validation request to my phone and with FaceID I'm in.
That’s exactly what I don’t want though. I don’t want to be tied to a bank app that requires a non-rooted device/whatever other checks it does.
Within the EU, there is a law that mandates accessibility without a smartphone. The banks will sell you some proprietary dotcode scanners then which are all manufactured by the same crappy UK company (as a sidenote).
But the upside is: they work offline, and makes your 2FA app unhackable because it's not an app and instead a physically separate device.
If you're as serious about your opsec as I am, I heavily recommend to not use apps on smartphones for banking.
> Which banks do you use?
My local credit union (TechCU) does none of that nonsense, and I highly recommend a credit union over any of the big banks in any case.
My chase only allows sms or call 2fa. Wish they would add passkeys or other options
2-factor auth is free, so it doesn't incur the 30% cost.
> 2-factor auth is free, so it doesn't incur the 30% cost.
The all new modern push notifications! Pay only 99ct per 2FA message, that's a steal deal!
For now.
Never.
Popular apps have been exempt from these rules since the beginning of time - not that I agree with this.
Is Patreon not popular?
If their app didn’t exist on iOS,
would it be weird/embarrassing for Apple?
That’s what “popular” means, in this context.
That’s how they make their decisions.
I feel like it would definitely be weird.
But Patreon does have a web version but I am not sure how many people prefer web sites in Apple ecosystem especially on Ios so I do find the whole thing to be a bit weird because this ~30% cut essentially seems to rip off of creators in some sense.
Patreon is a very niche app in the grand scheme of things. There's the saying that only 1% of web visitors ever stop by and actually contribute, and I'd expect that number to drop to 0.001% when it comes to contributing monetarily through a tool like Patreon. This is an absolutely tiny minority.
Hell I'd argue more people are upset about the lack of an OnlyFans app than Patreon. OF has way more brand-recognition (outside of tech) than Patreon.
I follow a number of creators on Patreon and have never once thought I want/need a Patreon app.
It rips off everyone.
Epic Games went to federal court over this with Apple like 40 fuckin times - a related fun read for you.
I’d be cheering on Epic Games if they were going after Sony and Nintendo with equal fervour. Personally, I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform when it comes to the selling of games and virtual hats.
Personally I think Apple should have two pricing tiers: one for interactive entertainment, and one for everything else. For interactive entertainment, a flat 30% on everything. For everything else, Apple lowers their margin to cover transaction costs only (in the realm of 5-10%).
That's what Apple already doing: applying arbitrary categories and charging arbitrary amounts of money because "transaction costs and platform or something".
1. Where the hell is the notion of "using the platform for free" even coming from (it's coming from Apple of course). I didn't know that iPhones are free, or that dev fees are waived for everyone.
2. Why the hell can't I use a different payment processor tham Apple and tell people about it? Then I'm neither using Apple's platform "for free" nor paying Apple's transaction fees.
For interactive entertainment, I see no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.
For all other apps, I agree that alternative payment processing should be permitted for one-off transactions. And I can agree for subscriptions as well, provided the developer can meet a high standard for simple, frictionless cancellations.
> no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.
Why? iPhones are not gaming consoles.
By game count and revenue, the App Store is very much a game store.
You may not think of the iPhone as a walled-garden gaming handheld with smartphone features, but that's basically what it is from a business perspective, and games are in fact the majority of apps on the system.
Epic (a game company) sued Apple to get it to charge lower platform fees than other game stores.
Liquor stores are not candy stores, yet they are allowed to sell candy to minors while being prohibited from selling liquor. The principle is straightforward: regulation should follow the product, not the venue.
All pained analogies are both pained and invalid.
iOS is not a liquor store, and allowing people to use other payment processors or even other stores on the platform is not selling liquor to minors.
Note how your analogies immediately fall apart for other platforms like, for example, Apple's own MacOS.
> I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform
Is it a "platform" the way a console is or is it a public marketplace? I'd think the distinction comes down to size relative to the rest of the market. If I run a private club that caters to a only a few people I'm not impacting anyone else. Whereas if I run a giant chain of so called "private clubs" that in reality 50% of the town purchases their groceries from then perhaps some scrutiny by the regulator is in order.
You quoted a sentence fragment that, when read in isolation, conveys a position I emphatically reject.
To answer your question directly: I contend that when it comes to operating a marketplace for interactive entertainment, an iPhone is no different from a Nintendo Switch, and if you want to impose rules, they must be imposed equally. For all other apps, I think Epic made some valid points.
The quote was not intended to frame your position in any particular manner. Simply to provide context so it was clear what I was responding to.
I take two issues with your response.
First and foremost, the point I raised was specifically about the size of an operation relative to the overall market. You haven't addressed that. You say you see no difference but don't explain why. It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players due to having different effects on the market.
Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market that includes apps for anything and everything. Compare a 1000 sq ft mom and pop game shop to a 400k sq ft big box retailer that sells groceries, liquor, clothing, home goods, yard tools, just about everything except for literal building materials. It wouldn't be reasonable to treat them the same way.
> It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players
I agree with this in principle, but I don't think that principle applies here. Apple is not a uniquely large vendor of games. There are multiple ecosystems operating at similar orders of magnitude in games sales, at around $10B or more. Against that backdrop, portraying the App Store as some singular 400-pound gorilla with respect to games is not accurate.
> Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market
That distinction cuts the other way. A general-purpose market does not escape product-specific regulation; it applies it selectively. A store that sells liquor must comply with liquor laws when selling liquor, but selling liquor does not prohibit it from selling candy to children. It is normal and reasonable to attach rules to the product being sold, not to the fact that the venue also sells other things.
Perhaps if Apple were willing to exclude games from the App Store and move them to a newly created Game Store, it would be easier to imagine how they could be made subject to different rules. But I don't think that should be necessary for the government to impose different rules on different product categories.
To be clear, another acceptable outcome IMO is for the Epic Games argument to prevail with respect to all major gaming platforms. If they believe Apple deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on iOS, then Sony deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on Playstation.
It seems to me that you're cherry picking a product category while I am taking "mobile app market" as a whole.
I did not suggest that Apple could escape laws that apply to a given product category. Quite the opposite - that I think it is reasonable for a behemoth to be subject to _additional_ regulations that cut across _all_ product categories. That was the point of my analogy. In physical retail big box stores are subject to additional regulations that mom and pop shops are not. The fact that Walmart happens to sell games and happens not to be the largest retailer of those is not going to get them out of being treated as the giant that they are.
I don't think it matters that in any given product category Apple isn't the largest. The issue is that they are one half of what is effectively a mobile app store duopoly in most of the western world. That fact carries serious implications for developers and consumers alike. Developers in particular, regardless of product category, are effectively forced to do business with Apple. On that basis I believe that either the app stores of both Apple and Google should be subject to _extremely_ stringent regulations or alternatively that the platforms should be forcibly opened up by law (ie no more locked down devices).
I agree with stringent regulations with respect to apps other than interactive entertainment. I disagree about interactive entertainment because I don't think that moral arguments for marketplace regulation extends to video games. Especially when it comes to cross-platform games like Fortnite. Nobody is forced to make games for iOS. Epic Games were certainly not forced to do business with Apple any more than Bungie or Naughty Dog weren't.
Is this distinction you're drawing based on a categorical difference such as entertainment or art? Or is it related to the size of the vendor relative to some metric?
Given that the service operator gates access to the customers and that most customers are unlikely to switch just to do business with a particular vendor, then shouldn't policy be determined solely by the size of the service operator? Why should the type of good or size of the vendor enter into it?
In the west Apple is approximately half of mobile. That's massive. Saying a vendor isn't forced to do business with them is like saying that a vendor isn't forced to sell their products competitively. All things being equal if you publish software for mobile then you will be selling through Apple regardless of the terms they might impose.
Your remark about Bungie and Naughty Dog seems to me like saying that the local city doesn't need to tax a chain restaurant at the same rate as an independent one because it has storefronts in other cities with more favorable terms. The idea being that if they don't like the city's terms they can just close that storefront; it won't kill them due to their size and reach.
> Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games
Since games also account for 70% or more of revenue, the App Store is more accurately described as a game store that also sells non-game apps, rather than a general store that also sells games.
The Game Store part of the app store could certainly stand on its own and operate with similar terms to Nintendo's eShop, Sony's PSN store, or Google Play.
Many people on HN seem to think that it's perfectly OK for Nintendo or Sony to charge a 30% platform fee for Fortnite but somehow not OK for Apple (or Google) to charge a 30% platform fee for Fortnite.
Epic wants to force Apple to lower its platform fees so that it can pay lower fees to Apple for Fortnite (technically IAP since Fortnite is "free to play") than what it pays to Sony and Nintendo (or Google for that matter) for Fortnite.
I hope my comments don’t come off as “cheering” for any of these parties...
As an app? No.
Have they? Netflix, Spotify, Kindle, ...
They will, the moment your bank starts selling media inside the app.
A nickel for each iMessage…
Some countries still charge for SMS. That's why WhatsApp is so popular in many places of the world.
in a lot EU countries, still today telco contracts are marketed with "...and unlimited number of SMS into all networks..."
Its still widely used :-D
No way really .. amazing in 2026 if true
There's basically two mobile worlds in India. The middle class has mobile plans basically like the rest of the world, while the poor (especially the rural poor but also to some extent the urban poor) have a pay-per-use account that also functions as their bank. So sending a text might cost 2 rupees, and an MMS might cost 6.
Honestly… if we implemented $0.01 charge on every message, post and etc. the world would become an amazing place.
1. This would not deter bad actors in any way, spammers already have no issue paying for junk mail. An 0.01 cost means nothing if the action they're taking generates more than 0.01 for them (it generally does). In fact this essentially incentivizes bad actors; you get punished for not profiting off your messages, so people would be more inclined to find ways to monetize their posts.
2. The costs for this would be ridiculous. I have probably sent over a million public messages on Discord in the decade I've been using it. $10,000 is a pretty steep fee to do some chatting.
3. This is essentially a digital ID scheme with extra steps, and requires ceding privacy completely to communicate on the internet.
I understand your comment was probably an off-hand joke and not to be taken seriously but if you think about it for very long it becomes apparent that it would actually make the problem worse.
I was talking about good actors as well!
Yes. Now you have to dox yourself to the platform to be able to talk to anyone, because payment cards are linked to strong ID.
>spammers already have no issue paying for junk mail.
Junk mail isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. And I'd be surprised if the margins for this was so high that a mere 1 cent transactions wouldn't deter so many of them.
I see it the opposite. You will never stop truly motivated propaganda from spreading its messae. They put millions into it and the goal isn't necessarily profit. But you stop a lot of low time scammers with a small cost barrier.If only because they then take a cheaper grift.
It costs to mail physical letters, somehow I still get "spam" addressed to homeowner/resident in my physical mailbox.
This was Bill Gates' idea with regard to a bit-tax, and goes someway to explaining why Microsoft initially didn't believe the internet would take off (and tried to push their own MSN walled garden as an alternative).
I think that spammers would happily pay that rate.
Today out of curiosity, I tried looking at what is the cost of one PVA (Pre-verified account) of google. I found it to be around ~$0.03 (3 cents) or it could be an amazon account idk or maybe an youtube account
Like my point is that atleast for amazon/yt, these bots usually cost this much ~$0.03 to buy once.
Then we probably see a scammer buy many of these accounts and then (rent it?) on their own website/telegram groups to promtoe views/ratings etc./ comment with the porn ridden bots that we saw on youtube who will copy any previous comment and paste it and so on.
So technically these still cost 3 cents & scammers are happily paying the rate.
I mean...that's how SMS used to work? Or still works?
Once upon a time it was expensive to send messages and now it's cheap.
Yeah. Iirc, I used to have to pay $0.20 per SMS message, sent and received, before unlimited plans became a thing. Also had a limited amount of minutes for phone calls.
I remember Verizon wireless at the time had a plan with unlimited nights and weekends for calls and texts, so my friends and I would message each other like crazy on the weekends when it was free. Got grounded when I got my first girlfriend in high school for racking up the phone bill from text messages and promptly got my phone taken away.
You had to pay for receiving SMS?
Yeah, in the early days, at least in the US, carriers used to charge for both incoming and outgoing SMS unless you had a plan that included it, usually with a limited amount of messages and they were quite expensive for the time.
That would totally amplify the voice of people you want to hear more from, not less /s
I think this is relevant, Cory Doctorow's recent speech to Canadian government and texh leaders: https://pluralistic.net/2026/01/29/post-american-canada/#ott...
He talks about Apple's app store
Take from the poorest to give to the richest of the rich -- that is the new way of doing business.
I feel like I've just watched a man in a $4000 suit wresting the change jar out of the hands of a homeless person
Took his mobile phone and shoes too!
This means Apple is literally going to take nearly 3x in fees from Patreon's customers than Patreon is taking from their own customers.
My understanding is that the reason the number 30% is so magical is a historical anomaly. When software was physically distributed back in the day, 15% of the MSRP was reserved for the distributor and another 15% for the retailer. When these digital marketplaces were set up, the companies just said "well, we're the distributor and the retailer, so we'll keep both". Forgetting the fact that the cost to distribute and retail the software is literally pennies on the dollar of what it used to be.
I think the irony in this case is that this is a greed problem of their own making. When Steve Jobs announced that apps on the original iPhone would only be $1-$3, he set off the first enshittification crisis in the software industry. In 2008, Bejeweled cost $19.99 if you wanted to buy it on the PC. On the iPhone it was $0.99! This artificially low anchor price is what kicked off the adoption of ad and subscription driven software models in the first place.
My understanding was that the retailer margin was 50% and the distributor margin was 10%. So Apple/Steam/etc went "half of 60% is a great deal".
Of course the retailer margin is never actually 50%. That's theoretical if 100% of product is sold at MSRP. Actual retail margins are about 25% because of sales, write-offs, et cetera.
OTOH when there's a sale in Steam, they still get their full cut (of the reduced price).
I remember writing apps for PalmOS (long time ago) distributors like PalmGear took over 60% from international developers like me, plus they held your earnings until you hit a minimum payout threshold. Add bank fees on top of that, and it was basically not worth developing for the platform. 30% felt like a godsend in comparison. (I'm not defending the Apple / Google tax)
From what I could find, it does seem that major retailers back in the day (CompUSA, Circuit City, etc) were only making 15% margin on software sales. This is much lower than other product categories - but also software didn't take up much floor space.
its agency model vs retail model. Recall - Amazon hated the agency model, where the publisher sets the price (and 30% cut goes to app store - Jobs sold this as amazing deal). Retail model the retailer sets the price, and the publisher is guaranteed the wholesale price. Amazon preferred the latter because they competed on dynamic price setting. this was so long ago we forget.
It coupled the small floor space with high prices, and an extreme overall easiness of management (low weight, resistance to small impacts, possibility of stacking, etc).
So that margin not only had to pay for small management costs, and had small opportunity costs on the floor space, but it also was divided by a large unitary price.
Had no idea about the history and the 15%/15% split but when the topic comes up I just remember how good the 30% seemed back in, what, 2008?
It made perfect sense that this shiny new iOS platform would take 30% of a cheap app to ensure that it matches the high quality of iOS. These were little productivity apps and games at the time.
This however - I just don't understand what the need is for an app at all for Patreon. Isn't this a website/platform kind of thing? Wouldn't an app just be an additional window into the Patreon platform?
What's next - 30% of my pizza price goes to Apple because I ordered it on my phone?
> What's next - 30% of my pizza price goes to Apple because I ordered it on my phone?
You joke but this already happens with places like DoorDash. They take 30% of the order from the store owner after adding their own additional fees to the order that customers pay.
Someone I know owns a pizza store and his prices are 30% higher on DoorDash but some people still pay. The big difference is it's not a monopoly. He offers regular delivery at normal store prices and 95% of his deliveries go through that.
I was working for a small software company at the time and we thought it was outrageous. We were selling our software online direct through our own web site and the cost was far lower. A few percent for credit card processing fees, and the server/bandwidth cost was inconsequential.
>This however - I just don't understand what the need is for an app at all for Patreon. Isn't this a website/platform kind of thing? Wouldn't an app just be an additional window into the Patreon platform?
That's the other part of the surrogate war happening with mobile. The web was unregulated and hard to profit off of, so Jobs took great strides to push the "there's an app for that" mentality that overtook that age. This had the nifty side effect of killing off flash, but it's clear the prospects didn't stop there. Not to mention all the other web hostile actions taken on IOS to make it only do the bare minimum required to not piss off customers.
It very much could just be a website with no reliance on IOS as a dependency. But Apple clearly doesn't want that.
>What's next - 30% of my pizza price goes to Apple because I ordered it on my phone?
I'm pretty sure Apple has discussed things exactly like this.
Their upper management really does tend to think that 30% of any monetary transaction on an Apple platform belongs to them. Too bad our government is too busy being ran by the billionaires to do anything about these abuses from billionaires.
Really hope the 2nd wave of Sherman hits these bit tech companies hard if/when this regime inevitably falls. I just hope there's something left of America when it happens.
Steve Jobs never announced a price ceiling for apps on the App Store. The well-known I Am Rich app for iPhone retailer for $999, the actual price ceiling.
That's wild I had to look up if anyone bought it. Apperantly 8 people did!
> https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/technology-blog/story...
It only really makes sense on the one time purchase of a product, not the subsequent in app purchases they don’t have to touch apples infra.
30% might be fair when you have a choice of either marketing and selling your app yourself, or just using an app store to do everything for you. But when you are forced to use the app store, things get really stupid really fast.
Apple still insists that the app store "provides value" for developers. They simply can't comprehend the harsh reality that these days, for most developers, the app store isn't the godsend service that helps their app get discovered, but instead an asinine bureaucratic obstacle they have to clear, and then regularly attend to, to have an iOS app at all.
The Mac app store, being optional for developers, is a good example of how much people actually want something like this.
> Apple still insists that the app store "provides value" for developers. They simply can't comprehend the harsh reality that these days, for most developers, the app store isn't the godsend service that helps their app get discovered, but instead an asinine bureaucratic obstacle they have to clear, and then regularly attend to, to have an iOS app at all.
Oh, no, they can comprehend, they just don't care. Apple controls access to a valuable pool of business, and they are going to extract as much value as possible from people wanting access to that pool. And, of course, they are going to try to burnish it with marketing speak, but that doesn't mean they believe their own marketing.
What are you going to do about it? Use Android?
Me? I'm working to help people get elected to Congress to help regulate this mess.
At the end of the day Apple is doing their damnedest to force the requirement to support other app stores. They want their cake, and they want to eat it too. Unfortunately they are going to make an epic fuckton of money before they get told to stop.
There is so much stuff that needs to get fixed in congress over this issue is even a blip on the radar.
True but people need to understand there is a wide public acceptance on this issue. No one likes big tech fleecing both users and businesses alike, people want action. If you aren't collectively organizing to exert toward this action how do you honestly expect things to get better? Because the opposition has no issue throwing hundreds of millions behind a super pac to enact the law as they see fit.
It doesn't have to be like this.
Also, contrary to current political environments, Congress is more than capable of doing multiple things as once.
Tech companies are involved in lobbying, so maybe it's not as irrelevant or unconnected as you might think. Fees are how they make the money that goes into it.
Bravo!
Why would you want to give the government such power? That always amazes me... when there is an issue, people jump on "let's vote for government to regulate this", but then they are surprised when a new government gets to power and uses this new regulation/capability against you.
>Why would you want to give the government such power?
Because the government is the only body equipped to create and enforce consumer rights laws. Do you think we'd have refund policies if the government didn't regulate them?
>then they are surprised when a new government gets to power and uses this new regulation/capability against you.
Okay. How is the act of forbidding platforms from banning alternative payment processors going to backfire?
I want them to use antitrust regulation against everyone, including me. That's what having values is like.
Markets without competition degenerate. Markets are also artificial and always rely on government enforcement to exist - Apple sues people who try to get around its market manipulation. You just prefer that governments help enforce trusts and destroy competition that those trusts denote as unfair.
> Markets are also artificial and always rely on government enforcement to exist - Apple sues people who try to get around its market manipulation.
Historically, markets are destroyed by government interference, not propped up by it. Your own example is a case in point: were it not for the government making laws in favor of entrenched companies, Apple couldn't sue the people trying to get around its market manipulation.
> You just prefer that governments help enforce trusts and destroy competition that those trusts denote as unfair.
This is a grossly unfair mischaracterization of the post you are replying to. Bad show, old chap.
Apple doesn't _need_ to sue people. They can just stop distributing their apps.
That's it. No "government monopoly" or anything, just regular commercial monopolism.
I may regret asking but what is your solution, then?
My (user) solution would be to use Patreon on the web, or on Android. No one is forcing you to use specifically the native Apple app.
On top of that Patreon is a closed centralized platform that's bound to have issues like this and that's where I very much prefer using protocols (vs platforms) that enable the same. There are very similar solutions to Patreon, but based on nostr and related protocols.
What is your solution to the government that you may not like using previously established "regulations" against people? My point is that you ask for regulation hoping that it will prevent this type of issue, but the regulation that you actually get will be barely having any effect and it will enforce ID + picture verification, it will enforce downloading specific government sanctioned keylogger app, it will enforce specific US state association, etc. New systems, new complexity, harder for newcomers to start business... Things like this are always added in the fine print. It will just lead to excluding so many people from using the service and making the overall space so much worse. That's why I'm encouraging people to think twice before immediately asking the government to expand its overreach via new regulations.
> On top of that Patreon is a closed centralized platform that's bound to have issues like this and that's where I very much prefer using protocols (vs platforms) that enable the same. There are very similar solutions to Patreon, but based on nostr and related protocols.
The problem here isn't that Patreon is centralized, but that the app store is. Apple could easily require a cut from any app using nostr and related protocols. Or simply ban them altogether.
Not saying government mandates are ideal, but I don't see any other way to force some sense into Apple (or Google). App stores should be some sort of independent institutions (non-profits) but companies have no incentive to cede that revenue. Until that happens, best not download from app stores unless absolutely necessary.
> My point is that you ask for regulation hoping that it will prevent this type of issue, but the regulation that you actually get will be barely having any effect and it will enforce ID + picture verification, it will enforce downloading specific government sanctioned keylogger app,
This is nonsense. Yes bad regulation is bad regulation, that's not an argument against regulation but an argument against bad regulation. Not all regulation is bad regulation - in fact most of it is good regulation. I enjoy not drinking feces for example but I'd love to hear your thoughts on how regulation against poopy drinking water is going to be turned against me.
> New systems, new complexity, harder for newcomers to start business... Things like this are always added in the fine print.
Good regulation recognizes that small businesses don't have the same ability to comply with complex requirements, so it creates exceptions for small business or relaxes requirements.
By all means, please advocate for good regulation and call out bad regulation, but pretending that regulation is unnecessary or inherently harmful only serves the interest of capital at everyone else's expense.
> I enjoy not drinking feces for example but I'd love to hear your thoughts on how regulation against poopy drinking water is going to be turned against me.
you can't interfere or comment effectively on the policies or processes of your water treatment plant. on the Patreon case the user can simply stop using Apple hardware or move to the web
throwing every problem down to the goverment feels like: i believe in animal rights so instead of going vegan i'll protest to the goverment make it illegal to kill sentient animals for products.
i know we can do both but OP's anarchy solutions feels much more reasonable than expecting the goverment solve stuff. creating a culture that uses de-centralized approaches is times better than sticking to a centralized platform, regulated or not
> you can't interfere or comment effectively on the policies or processes of your water treatment plant
Of course you can! You can simply install a well, a water filtration/RO system to make poopy water drinkable, or move to a different town that better suits your water quality needs. You always have the option of taking matters into your own hands and the point of having a government is so that you don't have to, in the interest of boosting quality of life and productivity.
> throwing every problem down to the goverment feels like: i believe in animal rights so instead of going vegan i'll protest to the goverment make it illegal to kill sentient animals for products.
Yes - obviously? That's how "rights" work, what separates them from "personal beliefs" is existence of a law that prohibits (or stipulates) certain actions from other people.
If I say that murder is cruel and harmful to other people, is your suggestion that I simply abstain from murder instead of demanding legislation that prohibits it?
Use Android
That is the user's solution. Patreon (the company having trouble with Apple) is not in the position to get ~50% of it's users to use a different phone.
Apple should not be allowed to be in the middle of business and half the users of the world.
And yes, that is very much something that governments have regulated for decades. In fact it's basically why anti-trust was invented. Train companies and deals with Standard Oil meant together they controlled the market since if you didn't go through them you couldn't ship your product.
Android is actively in the process of trying to kill off the ability to install your own software that is not Google-approved, so this is temporary solution at best.
Well, since everything seems to be getting worse, lots of good stuff are a temporary solution. Kinda sucks.
That's only a solution until Google does the same. And then we're stuck. What do we do when the two largest phone platforms perform this stuff? Go off the grid instead of talking to our representatives?
What about web app? Or desktop?
there is little other remedy to monopoly power?
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Apple is already getting sued by the DOJ for their abusive business practices. They should be regulated.
[flagged]
Yeah, lol.
Was all Apple since the iBook G4. Bought a Pixel last week. It's nice.
Google is also making Sideloading harder "to protect users"
launch an in-app browser and don't use apple as the payment processor.
The Epic v Apple lawsuit verdict makes this allowed now.
My understanding was that you could have a button that could take the user outside of the app to pay (i.e. your website). So progress, but not this level of freedom yet.
This is also a political issue. The administration could have ftc investigate this under anti-trust, and the government could also pass tighter laws preventing this. But this current administration is likely too friendly to big corporate interests.
Use Android or use websites instead of apps. Apple pushes their app ecosystem so hard because it's their walled garden. If you want to support a creator, go their website and click whatever they offer.
Walled garden is marketing speak.
Its a walled prison
Can we please just have cheap/affordable linux phones at this point.
I am so close to having raspberry pi phones but even rasp pi 's are getting expensive because of AI dammit
What's the big barrier stopping Linux from becoming a viable mobile OS? Or at least some completely de-googlefied AOSP?
Hardware. Mass manufacturing, plus the deep pockets of a corporation, mean that we've come to expect cheap prices for inanely powerful hardware. Yes I'm calling an $1,800 iphone cheap for what you get. That's cheap for what you get because if you're a tiny company, you can't get a phone of that level manufactured that you can still for anywhere near that price, and that's a super high end model. How many people are going to shell out $1,000 for a model with the specs of a $500 model just because it runs Linux? And that's before you even actually deal with the software. Specifically, driver support, battery life, and app support are the three big show stoppers there. The best option this second is a Pixel running GrapheneOS, and that's based on Android on Goolge hardware. (They did just announce getting off Pixels tho.)
A Linux smartphone has been tried before. That's not too say someone shouldn't try again, but just to say there are lessons to be learned from those attempts.
Yeah, that makes sense on the hardware end. It's really hard to compete and even some large players like LG ultimately fell out because of that.
But I was more speaking on the software end. You can certainly piss off Google if enough people decided to buy an android phone but have it boot up Linux instead. Might even piss off Samsung, so that's a plus. I assume the infrastructure to get APK support on Linux is a herculean task, though (that's the only way I see as a middleground until native linux apps work on mobile).
There is a way to run waydroid/android applications in Linux. I have personally tried it and honestly it does work great for the most part.
> How many people are going to shell out $1,000 for a model with the specs of a $500 model just because it runs Linux? And that's before you even actually deal with the software
Thanks for writing this comment because that's exactly something which I wanted to convey with my original comment too
GrapheneOS is already a viable de-Googled and significantly hardened and improved fork of AOSP. It runs on Google Pixels at present, with an OEM device planned for release in 2027.
I guess yeah, Most of my concerns were with Privacy but yea looks like grapheneos is a tradeoff I might have to make some day
but honestly its also the fact that I love cli tools and yea I can and I have used termux in the past but I really wish for a more first class for cli tools as well and I don't know but I just really wish to support linux tools.
Like I am just not satisfied with the current options we have right now and you can look at fragmede's comment as to why I mean that. I mean I just want a cheap affordable linux phone with just decent specs nothing too fancy. By decent I mean that I used to be on a dumb phone for a year with 32 mb ram iirc so perhaps my specs can be considered to be minimal but I feel like 2-4GB ram might be a good start. (prefer the 4gb option as to favour both me anad the masses)
Can framework or some other company go ahead and create a linux phone too please?
As one who previously had a PinePhone and really tried to make it work, I share the sentiment.
One problem is by the time you've modified the Linux kernel enough to suit it, and built the phone UI and broader software ecosystem around it, at some point you're just reinventing AOSP.
I'm hoping Debian on Android gets more mature, and works better on GrapheneOS.
Your best bet in the near term may be a used a-series Pixel with GOS on it. An old under-spec'd Pixel on sale was my entry point to GOS and contrary to my PinePhone experience, I knew instantly that was going to be the device for me for the coming years, and ended up upgrading a year later to a newer device.
GrapheneOS
It is more clunky and less polished than android. On the other hand, it is far more secure.
I was a user of android for 15+ years, and I had been using a pixel 4a when the battery issue came up last year. Google handled that so terribly I bought a used pixel 7a and installed Graphene.
Installation is quite easy. The lack of native voice-to-text was a pain; I installed a 3rd party utility (FUTO) for that, but unlike the native one where it translates while you talk, FUTO waits for you to finish then translates everything.
The messaging app is less integrated too. Android finally fixed things up with Apple such that emoji responses (heart, thumbs up, +1, etc) would appear as an annotation after the text message I sent, but now I'm back to getting "So and so likes your comment <full text of my comment>".
Some of the other pain was because I have tried to cut down on other google properties. I use "here we go" for mapping instead of google maps. Due to the scale of things, the real time traffic updates on google maps is far better than on here we go. I use fastmail instead of gmail and I'm 100% happy with that solution.
Well. I own an iPhone, a Macbook, Airpods, Apple Watch. I'm in the Apple ecosystem since the last 16 years.
Unfortunately, due to their behavior in the latest years, I'm not going to buy anything Apple anymore.
Fortunately for me, I prefer Linux to MacOS so I never have been totally tied in the Apple ecosystem and I know how to leave the boat without a lot of hassle.
I'm really saddened because they know how to make great products when they want to. It's just infuriating that everything that is shitty in their products is never due to randomness or bugs or whatever, but ALWAYS because they decided to fuck you.
Half of the apps on the app store can easily be replaced by a PWA that works on iOS and Android.
Question for the indie developers here; do you get more paying users from Apple devices?
I’ve never even considered publishing apps for other platforms as my gut tells me juice wouldn’t be worth the squeeze. Or to put it another way, I would prefer customers who already proved they have deep(er) pockets and are price insensitive.
Yes, I have the same app on iOS and Android, and for a long time it brought in half the revenue on Android for twice the effort (really messy SDK combined with too many OS versions and devices). Lately the gap has been closing, but it's still roughly 40% Android and 60% iOS, though I have slightly more installs on iOS.
Interesting insight, thanks.
The amount of people defending this because it's apple in here is astounding. This is possibly the least consumer friendly thing apple has done in a while, and that's saying something.
To keep their growth rates going, these mega companies soon need to swallow the whole country’s GDP. I really wonder where this is going. They can’t keep growing at some point.
This might become technocracy at some point, if the corporations become stronger than the state govs. In that case, the entire NOAM region will become a so-called technate, ruled by a form of ToS. I'd say, technocracy is way worse than even autocracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement
I think you may have fundamentally misunderstood what a technocracy is: it has nothing to do with tech companies whatsoever. From literally the article that you have linked:
> The technocracy movement proposed replacing partisan politicians and business people with scientists and engineers who had the technical expertise to manage the economy.
Technocracy is probably not the right word for what you mean. Oligarchy is probably a better one. This will probably evolve into idiocracy if you have seen the similarly named documentary .
And this is a big part of why I don't own an iOS device, and likely won't be purchasing another laptop from them, despite liking the hardware generally.
Not that I like Google much more re: Android and locking down side-loading more than before.
I was considering GrapheneOS when I bought my latest phone 2 years ago, but decided to stay with Android in the end. It has become very clear to me that I made the wrong choice.
Didn't apple lose the case brought against them by Epic for this very reason? Are they still operating illegally against the order of the court?[0]
[0]: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...
I’m surprised at the comments here. Why should the government set the “right” margin?
If you cap the margin, you’re entrenching the monopoly forever. Allow them to charge what they want, and set tax rates on corporations commensurate with the size of their profits. Make it easier for competitors to start.
The path to a sustainable marketplace does not come from top down enforcement of margins. It comes from competition
> Why should the government set the “right” margin?
For monopolies, that is the least bad option. What would be way better, though, is mandating an end to that monopoly by allowing all users to install any apps they want on their iPhones without needing Apple's permission in any way, shape, or form.
You’re permanently entrenching them as the winner, and reducing the incentive for a competitor to emerge. The cost of developing these platforms is high and clearly it’s hard enough to compete, why would you kneecap future competitors from the get go?
And competition comes from creating a competitive market. Rent seeking behaviour is not new. This is monopolistic behaviour that should be regulated. I agree that capping fees is not solving the crux of the problem though.
It cannot be said enough: Do not use apps! We already have the web! Tell everyone you know.
While its true that creators often share "extras" in return for support, it's crazy to call the support itself a "digital good." I can only assume they mean it is digitally good for their business.
I don't understand, doesn't the market solve these issues? Here's what I figure would happen:
1. App creators will pass the extra cost over to the iPhone users.
2. Android (and other platforms that can host smartphone apps) will be more competitive and start to look better for both app creators and consumers.
Sure, there's a bit of a context switching cost. Not everyone will just be able to automatically change over to an Android phone tomorrow. But it doesn't need to happen all at once. These phones get updated and replaced every 1-2 years. If iOS users see their app store prices rising too high, and they aren't OK with this, then they will switch to Android eventually, once it's worth it.
Otherwise, I don't see any problem with Apple reaping the benefit of their powerful and well-built walled garden ecosystem.
> If iOS users see their app store prices rising too high, and they aren't OK with this, then they will switch to Android eventually, once it's worth it.
Or they'll stop buying as many apps, or stop supporting people on Patreon.
There is a lot of stickiness associated with apple products. Be it their walled gardens or having better hardware or brand recognition. This is especially true in the American market
Look, I’m not switching to an Android just because I want to subscribe to a few podcasts.
I’ve heard it said that monopolies aren’t a flaw of the system—they’re its product. What else could perpetual, cutthroat competition lead to? This isn’t an unintended consequence. In every new era, even when an industry is disrupted or reinvented, a small number of dominant companies work aggressively to prevent real upheaval—by acquiring smaller competitors, engaging in regulatory capture, and shaping the rules in their favor. Historically, governments have often served the interests of their corporate patrons. The system itself is built for maximal extraction, and there is no “invisible hand” waiting in the wings to protect consumers. There are no evil and good CEOs, just cogs in this machine doing what they're incentivized to do, accumulate.
There is no monopoly here though. Android makes up a pretty substantial proportion of users. That users continue to use Apple devices despite this kind of greed (and that people on HN cheered when Apple defeated Epic in court) shows that users don't care, which is unfortunate.
Fair, but duopoly then, not much better
Cartel arrangements can still be a monopoly.
... but Google doesn't levy these charges.
... Google doesn't sell iOS apps.
I miss the old school monopolies, where MS was a bad guy because they dared to include browser.
And yes, I do legalese details of that are much more complex. But it just makes no common sense.
Apple also includes a web browser on iOS, but forces every other browser you can install to use their browser engine. It's one of the many reasons they are being sued by the DOJ for anti-competitive practices.
Apple also sits on a board that approves new web technologies for standards formalization, so they can squash adoption of anything that might make web browser APIs as capable as a native application, so that they can force people to make native apps where they can extract a percentage from it (they can't do that with a web application). Rather than work out reasonable ways to support things other browsers allow, they just say "no thanks" and then there is no standard allowed to move forward.
It's extremely abusive and anti-competitive. I hope the DOJ continues to pursue litigation against Apple for this and many other things.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Starts to make a lot of sense why Tim Cook is out there ruining his image for the sake of some favors.
I believe he'd be doing that regardless of the DOJ suit. Tariffs are another issue he is dealing with. Apple likes money, and will do practically anything to secure more of it.
Like try to break the internet and the java programming language? The former being most successful for years
IE was not just used to break the internet. It also had advantages. It supported features other browsers didn't.
Without IE, we wouldn't have had XMLHttpRequest, which means we wouldn't have had Gmail, which means we wouldn't have seen the bloom of "web 2.0" websites.
As for Java, Microsoft's C# is way ahead of Java in terms of language features. No idea how the runtime performance compares these days (both are very fast), but I'd rather have Microsoft Java than Oracle Java.
Microsoft's intent was always to break the competition, but they did it by offering features others wouldn't or couldn't. Evil Microsoft's Windows was the most feature-packed operating system out there because they threw every possible feature at the wall, kept what sticked front and center, and bothered to maintain what didn't stick. Microsoft Agents, the shitty Clippy things, were supported well into the Windows 7 era despite dying out the moment Bonzi Buddy was found out to be malicious. But Microsoft dared to break backwards compatibility with .NET 1 to fix the typing problem with generics that Java has to this very day; they just ended up supporting both, side by side.
>IE was not just used to break the internet.
It still did. Did you ever have to write specific code for ie6? <shudder>
I have a theory that they've actually succeeded with the latter too. I mean, look at Java now, and look how many mini-Javas (all those JIT-compiled languages and their runtimes) have emerged since. The point of Java was to unify, we've got more division than ever instead.
The point of Java was write-once, run everywhere, and that is perfectly viable these days. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is a Java programmer, and I don't think there is really any reason to suppose that unifying on a single programming language would be desirable for developers. IMO, Javascript already shows the dangers of over-unification; you get an ecosystem so full of packages that a significant portion of the language's developers are only capable of developing by stacking 1000 packages on top of each other, with no ability to write their own code and accordingly no ability to optimize or secure their programs according to the bespoke needs of the project rather than using general purpose off-the-shelf libraries.
I can quickly think of problems we have to deal with trying to make a real cross-platform application, or worse, a cross-language interface to a system/library, but not many that would stem from having a single dominant (non-stagnant or proprietary) language.
The overuse of dependencies is a problem, sure, but it's completely unrelated to "over-unification". Every ecosystem with a built-in package manager suffers from this, be it Node.js, Python, or Rust, to name a few. In fact, it's not even the package manager, it's the ease in adding new dependencies. Go demonstrates that pretty well.
> a significant portion of the language's developers are only capable of developing by stacking 1000 packages on top of each other, with no ability to write their own code
That's because those devs are incompetent, not because there are a ton of packages.
I believe one enables the other. If the package ecosystem wasn't oversaturated to the degree it is, they wouldn't be able to masquerade as developers and publish anything. But because there is a Javascript component for everything, they can do enough of an impression of a developer to ship things and get hired without ever learning how to actually program.
If you mention Java, I think you may only incite more nostalgia for the monopolies of yesteryear. Was Microsoft's approach to Java evil and ill-intentioned, yes, absolutely. But it eventually resulted in .NET and C#, so I'd say that particular battle was a net benefit to humanity in the end. .NET is even truly cross-platform now, and open-source. Meanwhile Apple achieves interesting technical advances with their new hardware but I will never benefit from the existence of it because I will not use hardware that is locked to a prison OS.
You mean the web right? Or did Microsoft ever roll its own BGP code?
For some reason I am assuming that they are talking about dot net web servers with the servers running windows (though I can be wrong and I am a little confused by what they mean break the internet as well in this context as well)
There's also the time they tried to kill the open-ness of SMTP
It gets real depressing when you compare the recent case of Google to what was done to AT&T in the 80s.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but it feels like over the past couple of decades we've gone from clever guys coming together with an idea and starting companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple, to celebrating buyouts of startups by large behemoths—that's how low the definition of success has dropped. Is competition law even a thing anymore?
It is, but the problem is that no one is enforcing the laws both old and new. That is why the elites hated Lina Khan, she was simply enforcing laws already on the books.
Wait a minute, there is a payment surface you can build in iOS(e.g. iirc a stripe demo video from the epic ruling last year), where one can pay outside the apple in-app payment method. The surface could specifically get you to your own web view(i.e. your own domain or stripe's surface) for payments. The bigger idea, I thought, would not let apple figure out a company's take was, to ask them to pay up.
How does this shakedown work for companies/orgs that have large number of paying iOS DAUs?
What am I not getting here?
Apple is doing to creators what the recording industry did to musicians. Enjoy what's left of the Golden Age of Patreon content because greed is going to suffocate it out of existence.
Or setup payments through the website
Is it still true that Apple bans you from telling users, in app, they can pay through alternative platforms?
I think it depends on the laws controlling Apple where you live
> "According to TechCrunch, only 4% of Patreon creators are still using the platform's legacy billing system, with the rest having already switched over."
The very last line of the article.
Yes, because intimidation and scare tactics work
This means that 4% are subverting the 30% fee.
Like Apple subverted the court order to allow apps like Patreon to use their own billing.
Incoming "please pay on webpage, else you have to pay 30% more" banner in the app
This is actually against their App Store rules, and likewise the article has the following bit:
> Patreon gives creators the option to either increase their prices in the iOS app only, [...]
it would totally not fly with Apple. They don't let this 30% commission to be visible by users, just like every other company that does such commissions. You don't see that the creator only gets about half of your donation on YouTube or Twitch, you never see that Visa takes 1% of your payment in a store, etc. Even governments do that. I don't see the value of VAT in the price of goods in stores. The US sales tax is an exception.
A lot of people would complain about how high those fees (or taxes) are if they saw them spelled out for them.
Version update rejected by Apple
Boycott Apple services. It’s the only way they will listen.
Yea, that won't do much. How about convict Apple of monopoly practices.
I really don’t understand this attitude. Of course it will. If enough people do it. This is how corporations change not through protest and we’re certainly not going to get any antimonopoly anything going on soon.
They make literally about 40% of their profit off of Apple services. Do you really think if people on mass stopped buying Apple TV, Apple Pay, Apple Music, an iCloud, they wouldn’t care?
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/01/2025-marked-a-record-...
I mean the minute people started talking a general worker strike in Minneapolis all of a sudden all these companies freaked our and wrote a letter protesting about IVE’s behavior in Minneapolis.
>I really don’t understand this attitude.
It's not an attitude, it's an observation. Corporations almost never change their behaviors because of protests and people bitching about them. It's one of the least effective ways of implementing change, especially when said company holds a locked in/monopoly position.
The thing is the end consumer is mostly hidden from the problems of Apples over charging, it deeply affects the companies selling services on the Apple platforms. What would affect Apple far more is not consumers not buying, but a huge part of the people offering on Apples market pulling out. But, Apple has that game rigged to. Particular suppliers get special deals with far lower costs. The competitors to those suppliers are now screwed. Apple will not offer them lower costs (again, Apple hides these contracts until they eventually get disclosed in court), every other company ends up paying a huge Apple tax because pulling out hand the competitor a huge market.
Honestly I'm fine with Apple charging whatever it wants for on its store. I am not fine with Apple selling you what should be a general purpose device and saying only its store can be used. Competitive stores on the device would quickly break Apple of it's monopoly behavior.
But it's completely wrong.
Having a boycott against you is like being hated. Firms spend enormous sums on advertisements.
Even a tiny group boycotting you has a substantial influence on your popularity-- they will tell their friends, etc. and will lead to reduced popularity.
It is not completely wrong. It's situational. The attention span of the general public is short, exceptionally short when it's about something that doesn't directly affect the general public too.
General public: "OMG, I should boycott Apple because they are making some other businesses life hard, why?"
It's a very hard sale because all the general public sees is Apple phones are easy to use and friendly. Attempting to explain the complexities that occur in the background gives Apple power in the narrative that they are doing everything to keep you "safe".
>Corporations almost never change their behaviors because of protests and people bitching about them.
Yes, because protests almost never reach critical mass when talking on the scale of a billionaire conglomerate.
The 3% rule is at effect here. if Apple made 200 billion last quarter (I don't know the exact numbers), we'd need at least 6 billion dollars worth of damage to make them listen, and make it clear it's because of this.
Even if the average IOS spender spent 1000/month (averaging in some super whales), we'd need 6 million users to stop spending for this to start having an effect. Can we get 6 million users to do that? I don't think so, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
>The thing is the end consumer is mostly hidden from the problems of Apples over charging, it deeply affects the companies selling services on the Apple platforms.
Yes. But that isn't proof that protests don't work. It's proof that people are ignorant to these situations. Making them aware is the hardest part in all this, and I'm sure corporations know this.
>every other company ends up paying a huge Apple tax because pulling out hand the competitor a huge market.
Companies work too, but we have even less coordination on this. And their incentives match Apple's. Patreon proper does not actually get directly impacted by this unless a bunch of creators pull out.
But the rare chances companies do push back, it works quickly. Just look at the Unity situation a few years back for a modern example.
My impression is that Apple as a corporation is really sensitive to their public image. I happen to believe that some corporations are actually highly sensitive to dollar losses but I also think what Apple worries about is a kind of downstream effects of brand image being lost.
I don't think that's all it would take but I kind of see Apple worrying that their products will start to be like fur in the 1980s or something... something that gradually fades and loses its brand value.
I guess in the end I sort of agree with the OP that boycotts can work and fretting about numbers initially leads to this kind of chicken and egg problem. If you try it it might work, if you try it repeatedly it's more likely to work, but if you never try it will never work.
> if people on mass [sic] stopped buying
Ah, the "vote with your dollar" argument. How's that been working out.
It ended apartheid in South Africa.
I do think it will work. I also think most people won't even know this is a thing, and that many who do know won't be clamoring to ditch their tech anytime soon. I never owned an apple service, so I'm just paying lip service if I say I'm "boycotting apple". I can't do much more on my front as a customer.
I can do a bit more as a voter, but not in this current administration. It's sadly not even a top 10 pressing issue compared to what BS is going on right now. But I won't forget this.
>I mean the minute people started talking a general worker strike in Minneapolis all of a sudden all these companies freaked our and wrote a letter protesting about IVE’s behavior in Minneapolis.
Yes. And it took not one, but two blatant murders on the street to do that. Tech is much more ephemeral in its evils.
Tim Cook hanging out with Trump at the White House a few days ago - not a good sign this will happen anytime soon.
Jeff Bezos commissioning an hagiography on Melania looking for other favours.
I refuse the purchase any apple products (I was never a fan and don't like paying premium for a walled garden) but it's impossible to offer an app if you don't also make one for apple devices.
There is no way around it especially in an apple dense market like Switzerland.
They have a clear monopoly and together with Google a duopoly.
I can thankfully continue with my refusal to purchase from HP perfectly fine.
If a fan starts a $10/mo Patreon membership inside the iOS app, Apple's subscription terms imply $3/mo goes to Apple for the first year (then $1.50/mo after), and Patreon's platform fee still applies on top. Patreon says Apple is also forcing the remaining ~4% of creators using legacy billing to migrate to subscription billing by Nov 1, 2026 or risk the app being pulled. That's a meaningful hit to creator economics for something that's closer to "patronage" than a typical in-app digital good.
I don't pay attention to all of Apples behaviors (still running an iphone 11) but this feels quite rent-seeky and creator hostile.
What bugs me about this isn't even the 30% in isolation, it's the category creep
seems that 96% are already doing this:
> According to TechCrunch, only 4% of Patreon creators are still using the platform's legacy billing system, with the rest having already switched over.
I've never used the Patreon app even once -- those creators I support, I set it up on the website.
Well, I certainly won't sell my fiction to Apple for them to turn it into a series in the future.
Unless they pay me 30% of all hardware and software revenue because popularity is a vehicle to sell more under the Apple brand.
I thought that already happened :)
But from past threads in a Linux Forum, seems this only applies to people using the Apple IOS App for Patreon. Not sure if using Apple Laptops.
But if you use Patreon's WEB Site directly, the fee cannot be collected by Apple.
That was my take anyways.
> But from past threads in a Linux Forum, seems this only applies to people using the Apple IOS App for Patreon. Not sure if using Apple Laptops. But if you use Patreon's WEB Site directly, the fee cannot be collected by Apple.
Moreover, the fee only applies to the subscriptions made using Apple's payment system. That being said, in most jurisdictions their payment system is the only one developers can use in an app. IMHO, this is the real problem.
Per the article it's already happened for 96% of creators and this is the deadline for the remaining 4%.
Yep, the tax comes from using the Patreon's in-app purchase system. Using a browser on an iPhone/iPad or any other device will not be taxed. Seen many creators putting in their bios suggesting people use the browser instead of the in app purchase.
Patreon fought this for a while but Apple has all the leverage unfortunately.
> But if you use Patreon's WEB Site directly, the fee cannot be collected by Apple.
Yet. Apple forces a specific browser engine on all apps, so they have the means to block patreon website too.
I can’t remember being more enraged than when I learned my YouTube premium was more expensive per month than it needed to be because I had signed up on iPhone, so many people wasting money every month, and YouTube isn’t allowed to mention the option to pay on web
If they weren’t a public company, you’d think they were the mob. I’ll never trust the Apple ecosystem ever again
With this logic, one should pay Google for making purchases in their browser or Netflix should pay e.g. Samsung a fee, as users consume content on their devices. Truly ridiculous.
The regulator must step in now and allow installing applications outside of the AppStore! We are witnessing in real-time what a monopoly and a walled garden leads to.
I'm not betting the US to do this right now. But look at the EU... Alternative app stores are allowed (forced by EU regulations), and it already lead to lower fees.
The vast majority of people will continue find and install (and pay for) stuff via the AppStore.
Let this be a cautionary tale for Google's plans with Android (developer verification, etc).
Why can't Patreon hike up prices in their iPhone app?
It would not only shift the cost to the user, it makes them cover the 30%, while discouraging the use of the iPhone app itself.
They could add a banner before the payment is processed that says "you could be paying less for the same benefit to the patron if you pay from our website. The price is higher here because of Apple, and you're covering the fee."
Apple doesn't allow communicating that to the user and neither price differentiation to compensate their fees.
So the company that also lets you support your favorite podcasts via a subscription decided their competitor should pay 30% more just to do the same thing? Cool.
So weird, why do you need Patreon dedicated app in appstore?
There is really so many people visiting Patreon, only because it's in Crapple appstore?
Or is this because they want to support as many payment methods as possible. And Apple Pay support requirements is to have an app?
Would be great, if they simple take a hit and gutted the app and redirect all people into website.
If they have good PR team, with proper messaging, they could make even more money, since people on Patreon usually don't like corpos.
If I'm patreon, here's what I'm doing:
Jack up every Apple user's monthly payment by 30%.
When they go into the app to figure out what the hell happened, they will find big red text saying "want to avoid the Apple tax? re-subscribe through our website! (Link)"
They click the link, it opens a webpage where all the payment info has been auto-filled. They click "ok." Bam, fee gone.
Much of what you suggested would not pass apple review, and would get your app removed from the app store if you tried to hide it during review.
For anyone seeking more info, check out these articles -
https://www.patreon.com/posts/apple-has-its-on-148395613
https://www.patreon.com/posts/128473586
Can someone explain how much of value the iOS app is to users? I'm a noob at Patreon, aren't creators receiving their support through the website's payment gateway already? I'm not really against a company setting the rules if it's their platform, if the market cannot accept it then alternatives (competitors) will eventually find new ways.
Probably the only added value is direct notifications of new content.
Patreon is probably going to shut down the payment feature from the app and orient people to the website. That's what I'd do... And bad mouth Apple.
Given Patreon's clients is influencers, this is a fairly bad PR move by Apple, for probably zero return...
4% of Patreon iOS users. That's how many use the legacy system Apple is insisting they remove. The other 96% already are using IAP.
> Patreon gives creators the option to either increase their prices in the iOS app only, or absorb the fee themselves, keeping prices the same across platforms.
I'm curious what percentage of creators chose which
Which makes it even more petty coming from Apple.
Money number must go up!
Tech companies are pushing their clients step by step out of new devices, platforms, subscription services, SaaS, ... Governments are pushing citizens step by step into Tech to control and tax their lives. At the end we, as simple humans, are always in the middle.
If I buy a gift card through my banking app, using reward points, is Apple entitled to 30% of that?
Yes. You owe Apple and Patreon as much ad they want to charge, because you are a mental slave
Insane PR move to further whittle down direct payments to people's favorite content creators
The Beggar Barons strike again! https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/
For those who, like me, are looking to break free from Apple but were tied to it through photo storage in iCloud, here's a first step towards independence: Immich! I self-host an instance for my whole family, and it works like a charm.
I've been saying its a 'walled prison'.
This was a great reminder to me that I needed to cancel every subscription I have tied to my Apple account. I'll give it to them though, they do make it very easy - I just cancelled all 10 of them in 10 seconds.
Isn't Patreon effectively a sort of payment processor? So how is this different from Apple demanding a 30% cut of transactions conducted by (for example) Paypal? (Assuming Paypal has an iOS app ofc, I have no idea.)
They also host and serve videos. Not sure about other media
Good point. That makes them a combined platform and payment processor. So it seems to me the logical question would be, shouldn't they just break the platform part out then? But isn't that exactly what their percentage fee amounts to? So Apple should be entitled to 30% of their (IIRC) 5%, right?
Really they ought to further split that out into "processing fee" and "platform services fee" and Apple would then be entitled to 30% of the latter.
Well, it's called greed
Really shitty to see how greed and money corrupts everything.
"Use our payment system"
"No thanks, our current system works just fine"
".. or get kicked off our store"
"Okay, I guess I'll do it then"
"Okay you're on our payment system; we take 30% off all purchased using our payment system."
"Get fucked"
This is low even for apple. They havent earned commision on this at all
As they don’t for all the other digital-content purchases they have taken 30% for many years already.
Which is why we have been getting great UX like being unable to buy books in the Kindle app.
Yeah. I get charging for hosting an app in your store, that requires work to build the ecosystem and security and stuff. But you have to draw the line on a platform and ecosystem and vetting that someone else has done. What did apple do to build kindles library of books? What did apple do to attract creators that patreon's users would like to support? Nothing. They should get 30% for installing paid apps that they are vetting and hosting, but nothing for things third parties are hosting and vetting
They don't mind.
I assume this is only for purchases made using the app, right?
Otherwise it just wouldn't make sense. Google gets a cut of all revenue, Apple gets a cut of all revenue, x, y, z, ... there would be nothing left over.
Who pays for Patreon via iOS?
if many people subscribe via ios then obviously apple is bringing creators more paying subscribers no so seems kinda fair to charge for access to that ecosystem?
The core problem is still the same.
Until there will be a broad regulation that enforce any general purpose computing device to allow installing non-provisioned apps, we'll be in those situations.
Does this apply to creators that aren't even in the Apple ecosystem or is it only for the patreons paying through the iOS app? What if everyone moved to the website?
If I were a creator, I'd start looking into platforms other than Patreon. What does Patreon offer that makes them worth giving up 30% of my revenue?
> Note: This image has been edited to include a pile of cash.
I giggled
The dark side of your walled garden is they can abuse you as they see fit, and when they become a giant, your options are to like it or leave.
I call this the Apple "idiot tax" - 'cos you have to be an idiot in letting Apple exploit you (the developer and the user) this brazenly.
This is counterproductive. The only alternative to letting Apple exploit you is letting Google exploit you. There are differences, Google is somewhat better on this specific point, but there's enough things Google is worse at (such as privacy) that choosing Google isn't exactly without downsides.
Your mindset results in Apple users thinking "the problem is those stupid Android idiots who accept being in an ad tech company's spyware garden" and Android users thinking "the problem is those stupid Apple idiots who accept that 30% of literally everything they do goes to Apple". In reality, we have a common enemy in the big tech duopoly and extremely lacklustre regulation which lets them keep doing this shit. You calling me an idiot for making a different shitty trade-off than you helps nobody.
> This is counterproductive. The only alternative to letting Apple exploit you is letting Google exploit you.
Or allowing users to control their hardware and software and give them the freedom to install the hell they want on it?
We've been using computers for eternities where we still have the possibility, yet, as soon as it is about phones then "no way, we protecting you from bad actors".
Give me a break, you want to help protect me from bad actors implement proper software/hardware jails/containers for third party software and that's it.
As a user, I can not allow users to control their hardware. It is not up to me. I get to choose between Apple and Google, and neither is in the business of allowing users to control their hardware.
You do have an alternative to both Google and Apple, which gives you the best of both worlds - it's called the Sailfish mobile OS - https://sailfishos.org/ . (As for my snarky post, read my other comment in this same thread to understand why I posted what I posted.)
I don't think I can send or receive money to and from my friends or pay my public transport fare from Sailfish.
If there's an Android app for it, it should run on Sailfish OS too. They are working hard to make more and more apps compatible with it as this old discussion highlights - https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/banking-apps-on-sailfish-os/1...
These days, Google has foolproof ways for an app to query and check if it's running on a "genuine" (read: Google-controlled, locked down) system.
I'm not switching to Sailfish.
Who am I to tell you how to spend your money? The point is, there are alternative unlike what you claimed. There is currently no foolproof way yet for Google to block apps. Also, it doesn't matter, in the long run - once the adoption of Sailfish OS picks up and it reaches critical mass, developers will switch to building apps for it. The "digital sovereignty movement" also helps. Russia has already bought and forked the source code of Sailfish OS and adopted it as its "national" state-sanctioned mobile operating system. This has had a ripple effect where many Russian apps have now been ported to it. China too has already forked Android to create its own "official" OS and most Chinese apps now also work on it. Similar attempts are going on with other countries too, who don't wish to be trapped in the duopoly that is Apple and Google in the mobile phone industry.
I would like nothing more than for a third viable competitor to show up.
I don't think you calling me an idiot will make that happen faster, is the point.
Victim blaming
Every time you spend money, you are casting a vote for the kind of world you want. - Don't most of you here tell me that corporates don't need regulations as smart people "vote with their wallet"? If this is what some want to spend money on, the term "idiot" sounds justified ... anyway, the point was not to offend; just to embarrass some mildly to introspect their purchasing decision.
Oh, now ios users are an oppressed group. How cute.
Being a victim and being an oppressed group are not the same thing...
every system that gets too greedy eventually gets squashed (e.g. regulations) or kills its host (e.g. cancer).
I've noticed watching blood money on Netflix that greedy systems tend to get greedier and greedier, and this is the best way to catch bad actors.
On the other hand, criminals that try not to become too big and remain low-profile are the ones that never get caught.
Can't they just remove this option from app and redirect to the web? Wasn't this the same story with Spotify?
Yes, which suggests internal metrics show this to still be the better path.
web is now so good that mobile apps lost any meaning to exist - unless you need to access some local hw or data on consistent basis(the app must run as daemon or something like that). in other words, if you app is a service, just use web. if it is not a service, then you just sell it as you would a desktop program.
Sounds ... like the mafia.
You MUST use our billing system. Oh, btw, because you are using our billing system, we get 30%.
Apple has an Apple Pay for Donations[1] program, which doesn't apply for rent seeking entities like Patreon. I wonder if Patreon's 10% fee is commensurate with the negligible value that they provide?
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/nonprofits/
Yes but you cannot restrict content or features based on whether or not someone is a donor, which is basically what Patreon is for.
Source I run a non-profit and we have an app that takes donations via Apple Pay
Did you even bother to look up what Patreon is providing for that fee?
Man that should not be allowed. 30% (pre-tax) loss, plus taxes, plus platform cost. Thats insane
Happy to pay 42% higher Patreon fees in exchange for ease of subscription control, visibility, safety and ease of payment with in-app Apple payments.
It’s funny seeing people call 78% operating margin too high, while we all know that software VCs demand 90% margin from their startups, and if it wasn’t Apple, people here would call that an excellent business.
How does this work if I signed up to patreon on the web and have never used the app?
They work to make Apple rich. It's a bit like the mafia, but not as rememberable.
Ok, cool - Apple is doing Apple things. And Patreon: will they comply?
Just to put things into perspective: Visa and MasterCard interchange fee in EU is 0.2% for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards. Apple taking 100x this is just ridiculous.
This is why holding Apple stock is almost a can't lose.
Can't they just link out to their site to do billing?
Apple obviously needs this to save themselves from bankruptcy.
Not cool Apple, bad look, I like you less for this.
So how do I avoid apple taking the cut? Unsubscribe from people in my ios app and resubscribe on the web? I subscribe to super small creators where this 30% cut makes a meaningful difference.
Sad, mean, and pointless
Apple needs this to stay afloat, you know
Those greedy artists and creators depriving Apple of their profits.
Poe's law hit me hard.
Some people say that Apple is wildly profitable and has more money than it can spend. But if profit goes down, even if it remains huge, then Apple stock takes a blow. And stockholders are who really this is all about. So really increasing profit a few percent a year is truly just barely keeping the head above the water.
Wait, you were serious?
Knowing there are Apple fanboys around HN (I got downvoted for saying the liquid glass thing and the iphone air were pointless) I fear they will take your comment seriously
I am serious though
I think I’m old enough to have experienced this cycle so many times with so many businesses that I just feel kind of silly to hate on Apple or Microsoft or whoever. They’re all just maximizing profits as designed.
I think people find it easier to scowl at the villain du jour than to dig into the deep complex issue of when capitalism doesn’t work, when the government isn’t doing enough, and what we could do about it… or the feeling that we really can’t do much.
> feeling that we really can’t do much.
That's why people don't dig into the deep complex issues. Because it's uncomfortable, and forces one to confront the potential reality that their worldview, and everything they've known about how our society works is wrong, broken, and collapsing in front of them.
It can be a very distressing and depressing state of mind. There's a reason "ignorance is bliss" is a common trope, because there's some real truth to it. For some, it's better for emotional and mental wellbeing to ignore the problems of reality and remain ignorant.
> For some, it's better for emotional and mental wellbeing to ignore the problems of reality and remain ignorant.
I think it isn't just some, it's effectively everyone, the nature of being human. Instead, there's a group of people who are willing to sacrifice their emotional and wellbeing to face these problems of reality, and try to use the limited power they do have to improve them, for the greater good.
>or the feeling that we really can’t do much.
We can do a lot if we pressure the company or the regulations around it. Maybe not right now in this current regime, but tides will shift.
The issue is that people's attention spans on this are much too short. The fervor around this may not even last to the end of this month, let alone until a change in power allows a new administration to properly go after the company.
You don’t need to solve the problems of capitalism to call bullshit bullshit. Saying “companies maximize profits” doesn’t magically make the behavior acceptable and when Apple does this, it’s not just “the market at work,” it’s the use of market power.
Complaining about it is part of the system operating the way it operates. It’s factored in already. I just think that it’s not really interesting. It’s reasoning about the instance, not the class.
Maximizing profit is the essence of capitalism but this is pure rent seeking. They are extracting excessive fees for no obvious value creation.
I'd rather they garner a few dollars this way than look to actually shady monetization practices, like most other big tech companies do.
Not a bit deal really, a tiny minority of people will be a few dollars out of pocket, because the loophole most of us don't enjoy has been closed.
Apple doing Apple things... nothing to see here
With only two mobile OS providers, they should be highly regulated. But given Tim Cook gave Trump a golden award and attended the premiere of the Melania documentary, I doubt they’ll get any antitrust trouble. Disappointing rent seeking behavior.
> rent seeking
This goes way beyond rent seeking, it is much closer to outright theft, for rent you get something in return. This is just a nice form of robbery and I'm sure it is all legal by some stretched definition of the word but it makes me sick.
Yesterday we had the monthly Woz adulation article, I really like the man but would like him even more if he told Cook to his face that this is not the Apple that he had in mind when he co-founded the company. It's not like he has anything to lose.
On the contrary. There is an ongoing DoJ antitrust case against Apple with a long list of grievances. Most of those were already addressed by Apple (since the case was filed a pretty long time ago) the rest will be tested in the courtroom in the following years.
Those cases take a long time.
For the price of paying Apple, Patreon should be able to develop a web app instead. Why isn't this happening? Why an app when the web will do?
Yeah, I don't understand this at all. I use Patreon and I support a couple of tech content creators. But my use of Patreon intersect in no way with iOS and I'm not sure how it would. Can someone please explain?
Okay so basicially apple users are dumb as rocks which is why iOS is so profitable in the first place, and they are corraled into installing apps and making in-app purchases.
Users are gonna do what's best for them, and if they install apps then it's also what's best for Apple shareholders ;)
how is this legal
Good question considering apps unequivocally have the right by court order to use their own billing, and considering the contempt ruling and referral for criminal investigation Apple already got for violating that order.
Trump fired Lina Khan on day one of his adminstration, so there's a start.
Isn’t this what Epic just sued and won over?
Epic didnt really win. If i recall correctly the ruling ended up being that 3rd party payment processors are allowed but 27% of app revenue is still owed to apple if that route is taken. So you can save 3% by using 3rd party payment processing but thats around how much those services cost anyway so no real saving
They tried that. The judge, correctly, went "uh the fuck you will".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple
> While Apple implemented App Store policies to allow developers to link to alternative payment options, the policies still required the developer to provide a 27% revenue share back to Apple, and heavily restricted how they could be shown in apps. Epic filed complaints that these changes violated the ruling, and in April 2025 Rogers found for Epic that Apple had willfully violated her injunction, placing further restrictions on Apple including banning them from collecting revenue shares from non-Apple payment methods or imposing any restrictions on links to such alternative payment options. Though Apple is appealing this latest ruling, they approved the return of Fortnite with its third-party payment system to the App Store in May 2025.
That judge's ruling was essentially overturned last month on appeal.
> Even though Apple was no longer prohibiting linked-out purchases, the district court held that this new approach effectively prohibited linked-out purchases, and it violated the spirit of the injunction. The district court then enjoined Apple from imposing any commission or fee on linked-out purchases. However, the Ninth Circuit panel found that the complete ban was overbroad and punitive. Apple should be permitted to charge a commission based on costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for its coordination of external links and linked-out purchases, but not more.
"Genuinely and reasonably necessary", not being defined, will naturally be taken by Apple's malicious compliance department to mean "26%", I'm sure, and we'll get to enjoy a continued round of show trials in court with no meaningful effect for years to come.
I wouldn't describe that as "overturned" but rather "clarified a detail or two". They still aren't allowed to set arbitrary fees but if they can show receipts then they can demand reimbursement.
The idea seems to be that the injunction shouldn't be able to force Apple to operate a given account at an overall loss. They can bill you for resources of theirs that you actually use.
However, given we've seen how flagrantly they violated the first injunction, it's easy to believe they will take the liberty to interpret this one as maliciously as possible as well. Sure, if the fees are too high they'll end up back in court to attempt to prove costs, and maybe something will happen years later after bouncing around in appeals and violating new injunctions, or maybe it won't.
Epic lost on 9 counts out of 10 in the original lawsuit. The one they won is being appealed and in the process Fortnight was ordered to be reinstated in the US. I wouldn't bet that this arrangement will survive appeals.
are they going to pay 30% towards refunds/fines etc. due to crimes committed using iOS?
Nostr and Zaps, problem solved.
Can you mind elaborating further how this would work? I am somewhat familiar with both of them.
Are you suggesting some sort of app store or web page to send money/bitcoin?
Nostr is a decentralized social protocol where people can send btc tips, called zaps, directly to creators.
I believe what you're saying is the benefit of Bitcoin (or other crypto) to get around gatekeepers.
I don't believe Patreon at this time supports any crypto. If they wanted they could open this up. Not sure if Apple would allow this (on an store app) without their 'slice' of the pie.
Technofeudalism at its finest.
Attitude like a true mob boss.
Apple's ecosystem is the 8th wonder of this world. Nowhere else you can put a logo on a piece of cloth or aluminum wheel and sell them for hundreds of dollars. Greatest capitalist company of all time.
Soon Google will do the same thing. And then what?
The practical way out is to just buy QQQ and get some of your money back.
Am I the only one that dislikes phone apps?! For example, I do NOT want to install an app for my power company. Just text/email me if you need to reach me and I can do anything else through their website.
I do support apps that support unique phone features: Phone, camera, GPS, etc.
That's why the DSA is a good idea that should be replicated worldwide.
Too many parasites between creators and consumers
This is obscene.
Greed
Imagine if Visa or Mastercard decided they were going to take a 30% cut as a merchant fee. Governments wouldn't allow it. Why does Apple get a complete pass?
What is the strategy for “app” distribution for the mobile market that bypasses iOS / other vendors ? Is this even possible?
Apple has an impressive commitment to evil, similar to Oracle. They get better at it every year.
The tremendously, villainy evil of getting money for a service.
So
- the devs all need to get licesnses and specific hardware to develop for IOS
- They spin up their own servers to manage all the finances coming in
- They work on their payment processing solution separate from Apple. And Patreon still pays some fee to apple over the app.
- the model of Patreon only takes 5% off of creators, so that's not enough for Apple. It also wants a cut at the customers of the website who provide services. Customers not beholden to any one platform.\
- And to force them to do that, they are kicking the other processing plan off as an option, leaving only them to work with.
And it's somehow not evil? If I let a friend sleepover at my apartment, is the landlord in the right to demand a day of rent from them too?
I see you don't have much interaction with landlords and their thought processes.
A service that Apple is mandating everyone to use or else get kicked off their operating system...
This would be an entirely different conversation if Patreon was still allowed to use other payment systems outside of Apple's IAP service. No, this is Apple forbidding competitors on their platform.
"Nice business model ya got there, sure would be a shame if somethin' happened to it."
with the direction their hardware is going, that's not going to last another decade
Ahaha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
I mean, keep buying their phones or whatever.
I think it’s not that simple. These are not my words and I cannot only post the link [0] as the author uses the referrer to hide his articles from HN, but here’s the text:
Once again, Patreon is going to strong-arm all of us into "charge at the moment of sign-up" instead of "charge on the first of the month." They have wanted this for years, and once again they are saying that Apple has given them cover to demand it. Here's what I wrote when they tried to pull this shit a year and a half ago and then chickened out:
Patreon has two billing models, monthly (bills on the first of the month, or whenever they get around to it) and daily (charges you the moment you sign up.)
For several years now, they have been trying really hard to get creators to switch to daily billing whether they like it or not, with a series of intrusive nags and dark patterns. E.g., the "Settings" tab always has an "unread" alert on it reminding me that I have not made the "recommended" change.
Now they're going to force everyone to switch, and they're blaming Apple for it. And, to be clear, fuck Apple, but also fuck Patreon, this is their choice and it's going to mean that I can no longer use their service.
Here's a support request I just sent them, again, after clicking 15 levels deep into their FAQ before finding the thing that might contact a human. Since the email alerting me of this change came from a "noreply" address because of course it did.
Feel free to send your own:
---
Subject: Subscription billing is unacceptable
You recently sent mail saying that you're going to force me to switch from monthly billing to subscription billing.
Subscription billing is unacceptable for my Patreon. It does not work.
I sell monthly memberships to a physical nightclub. The memberships begin on the first of the month. I fulfill and mail the physical membership cards on the first of the month. If you make me switch to daily billing, that means I will have to do merch fulfillment on a daily basis instead, and I simply cannot do that.
If you force me to switch from a monthly cycle to a daily cycle I will have no choice but to stop using Patreon.
To be clear: I do not give a shit about the iOS app. Not one fractional fuck is given. If the solution to this problem is that people cannot sign up for, or access, my Patreon from the iOS app, that is 100% acceptable to me.
I know for a fact that none -- zero, 0% -- of my patrons have signed up using the iOS app. I know this because I had to warn them away from it, due to the 30% Apple Tax, and all of them complied. All of them. The iOS app is utterly meaningless to me and to my patrons.
(Also you are blaming this on Apple's bullying, which is simply not credible. You've been nagging me to change to subscription billing for years, with the little red error icon appearing everywhere. This is your decision. You are transparently using Apple as an excuse.)
---
I said this same thing to you a year and a half ago, the last time you tried to pull this nonsense. Second verse, same as the first. Last time, support replied that they "completely get why this change would be upsetting" and "will bring my feedback to the team." Uh huh.
Patreon's absolutely awful level of service and support has been a huge problem for quite some time, but I am really not looking forward to having to figure out how to implement recurring monthly billing on my own.
Patreon, YOU HAD ONE JOB.
[0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2026/01/patreon-is-lying-again-and-...
Patreon's whole shift away from the bulk billing never made sense to me.
I subscribe to like 10 patrons each at $1-$3/month. Right now they can just charge me once, $20/mo, pay 3%+30c card fee on that, they pay a buck in fees, get $19, great.
Instead they want to charge me $1, 10 times a month, hit with a 30c fee every time, instead paying a total of $5 in fees, getting way less proportionally.
They must really make their bulk on big patrons paying like $20+/month to a single patreon
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 them a membership card and cross their name off a list.
> 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!
Why is this person selling “nightclub” memberships via patreon?
The what and why of the nightclub memberships are explained pretty well on the patreon's about page: https://www.patreon.com/dnalounge/about
The person in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Zawinski
TLDR: if you still have any Patreon subscriptions through Apple’s in-app-purchase flow (look in Settings > Apple Account > Subscriptions) cancel them and restart them on patreon.com
[dead]
Always hated apple for their putrid business practices. Add this to the pile.
I've been trying to find a decent 16'' laptop (to replace my thinkpad x1 carbon).
Been running linux (popos) for donkey years and I entertained the thought I should go back to Apple and get the MacbookPro-16 (which is probably the best laptop you can buy imho).
Then I remembered all this crap that Apple does and dismissed it.
A few years ago I got the m1 macbook air (lovely hardware!). Some software update fully bricked it, which is really annoying already. Then I found out the only way to restore it was to connect it to another macbook. That was it for me.
The Services version of apple is the worst. Tim Cook might actually be the worst ceo apples had
The Nineties would like a word.
Apple making sure to stay in lock step with the US' general decline into late stage capitalist decline.
When one person acts up it’s a person problem. When everyone acts up it’s a system problem.
[flagged]
Google play store and steam are the same. This is regulatory. Hating a company for maximising profits is really something you should aim at legislation to control unchecked capitalism.
Except neither of those two are the exclusive way to install software on a computer that you own. All 3 have their issues, but Apple is uniquely bad in this way. I don't find myself Hating Steam/Valve.
It functionally is for most users with android phones. 99% of people aren’t side loading apps.
When the App Store first launched I think 30% was pretty fair fee for Apple to collect, but that was a long time ago, and before IAP/Subscriptions. Apple might still be entitled to some percentage but they've expanded to cover more and more things (like this Patreon change or Kindle back in the day) and now we have moved far, far beyond the pale.
Apple (perhaps like all corporations but I'm focusing on Apple) is a greedy company that has massively lost it's way. Tim Cook support fascists and/or anything to improve the bottom line, especially if it increases "services" [0]. Alan Dye (thank god he is now busy screwing up Meta) shipped the worst UI revamp I've seen in a while from a company Apple's size and the iOS/iPadOS/visionOS/macOS software is all in dire straits. And they managed to do all of this while alienating developers left and right and playing chicken with governments around the world [0] instead of relaxing their hold on their platforms.
But who cares? The stock price went up. /s
I was overjoyed to see Alan Dye leave (and Jony Ive) and hope that we don't have to wait too much longer to bid Tim Cook adieu. Whoever takes over next has a lot of work ahead to dig out of the hole Tim Cook dug for Apple.
Tim Cook might be the best thing for shareholders but he has been horrible for product quality (software and hardware) and for democracy.
[0] Pay no attention to how much of services revenue came from the Google search deal with the majority of the rest coming from casinos for children and adults alike.
[1] Like the EU DMA, which, I have publicly and privately voiced my dislike of parts of it but Apple has no one to blame but themselves. By keeping a white-knuckle grip on their revenue they forced governments across the world to pass laws (often bad IMHO) that fragment and confuse the entire iOS market.
30% was always excessive.
I suspect developers are looking for these workaround because of the 30%. If Apple had asked for, say, 10%, would there be as many developers looking for loopholes?
I don't know. Apple perhaps should ask for compensation for "vouching for" the developer's app, hosting the app, distributing the app. But Steam shows us another model where the developer themselves pay a modest up-front cost to have their app hosted ($100) and then Steam steps out of the way.
I wonder if this would go a long way too to thinning the herd so to speak from the Apple App Store—perhaps improve the overall quality of the apps submitted.
I think a lot of developers were willing to let it slide when App Store was a luxury market. You could just ignore it and make regular webapps and/or desktop software.
But now iOS is the most popular computing platform in the US. We no longer _have_ an option to ignore it.
And 30% is just crazy. And it's _on_ _top_ of all other expenses: Apple hardware that you need to buy to develop for iOS, $100 per year subscription fee, overhead of using Apple's shitty tools, etc.
To be fair, the fee is really 15%- 30% only comes into play only after you've made $1mm USD in the prior year.
That's the issue, though. These aren't the Patreon devs running the app. These are creators using Patreon. It's 2nd level rent seeking.
Steam takes 30% cut, though?
Yes, and that is also excessive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I have to respond to your point, though. Whether 30% cut is excessive depends on whether devs feel like they are getting a good deal. As far as I can tell, game developers don't seem to complain about Steam cut very much, it seems like the value you get is worth it.
For example, this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/10wvgoo/do_you_think... seems like majority is positive about it, even though people debate. When Apple tax is brought up, there's almost never even a discussion there, it's pretty universally hated.
Apple seems to have almost adveserial relationship to its developers. I deploy to App Store and I feel like I'm getting screwed. Even compared to Google, which takes the same cut, but does bahave a lot more nicely to its developers.
I'm not judging that, it just seems to contradict the "But Steam shows us another model..." sentence, so I'm trying to make sense of that.
You're right, I didn't know it was 30%.
Checking an LLM, it sounds like they more or less all charge 30%. That's shit.
Tim Cook has been horrible for software, but the hardware under his regime has been incredible.
May I introduce you to years he let Jony Ive control that. Which brought us things like the butterfly keyboard, thinness at all costs (battery life), and loss of ports (in part due to thinness) that had to be walked back.
Yeah, I have no love for Ive's anti-bauhaus philosophy of form-über-alles.
Ports hiding on the back so you have to endure the sound of USB-tin scraping against anodized aluminum, the round mouse, etc.
Incredible is stretching things. Apple had to catch up with AMD in efficiency, and they did that. Outside the mobile market, Apple is basically a non-entity.
Apple doesn't have huge sales volume for Macs because of macOS and their astronomical pricing schemes, but it's not because of the hardware. Macbooks are easily the best laptops you can buy for most purposes, and they have been since the M1 came out. That has never been true of Apple computers before.
It's because of the hardware. For mobile Apple is competitive, for desktop applications they don't even show up on most benchmarks next to AMD/Nvidia hardware.
For example, you have to scroll beneath last-gen laptop GPUs before you can find any Apple hardware on the OpenCL charts: https://browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks
That's also because of software. Apple deprecated OpenCL in MacOS eight years ago. In productivity software with solid Metal implementations, like Blender, the M4 Max is on par with the top of Nvidia's (mobile) 5xxx line, except with much more VRAM.
No software fix exists, Apple's GPUs are architecturally limited to raster efficiency (and now, matmul ops). It's frankly bewildering that a raster-optimized SOC struggles to decisively outperform a tensor-optimized CUDA system in 2026.
I get the feeling you had a specific use case that didn't work well with Apple GPUs? I'd be curious what it was. The architecture does have some unusual limitations.
By software problem, though, I meant referencing OpenCL benchmarks. No one in 2026 should be using OpenCL on macOS at all, and the benchmarks aren’t representative of the hardware.
I agree that the early days when every app was a single purchase and the prices were much higher it made more sense. A lot of people got rich from the App Store. So 30% wasn't a huge piece when you were seeing consistent growth every year in the user base.
I think the most annoying thing is how unevenly the policy is applied. Some megacorps pay the 30% and others like Amazon get sweetheart deals. So it unfortunately comes down to who benefits more. If you have something Apple really wants then they will cut a deal. But if not then you pay the high tax. They've at least cut it down somewhat for smaller devs and teams, but the whole industry needs to change. IAP/Subscriptions shouldn't just inherit the pricing systems of old.
I have a feeling Tim is just going to tank the Trump stuff and then peace out next admin so he gets all the blame. Much like Ive and Dye have been.
> I think the most annoying thing is how unevenly the policy is applied. Some megacorps pay the 30% and others like Amazon get sweetheart deals.
I agree, there were deals down to 15% I think (maybe lower) but I don't think that's still happening? I mean, Netflix finally gave up but only after increasing their IAP fee to cover the difference for many years. I might be behind the times on this but I didn't think they still had better cuts for larger corporations. I do know not all developers are treated the same (see Meta still being on the app store after all the shenanigans they pulled with enterprise certs, or Uber), and that does suck. It means that if you are big enough you can break the rules while an indie dev can have everything taken due to an automated system or mistake, even when it's not their fault.
> I have a feeling Tim is just going to tank the Trump stuff and then peace out next admin so he gets all the blame. Much like Ive and Dye have been.
I agree that's likely, though the thought of him staying till the "end" of that is not attractive.
>but I don't think that's still happening?
Apple and the contracted company are very very unlikely to tell you they have a secret contract for lower prices in effect unless they are forced to under court disclosure.
Oh, I 100% agree. I was wrong, I thought they got in trouble for doing that but I think I am only remembering things that came out in discovery for the Epic case, which didn’t center on that or prevent Apple from having such arrangements.
There's little assurance of safety or 'fitness for purpose' for apps in the App Store. Apple takes 30% for distribution, and you're basically on your own.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-betrayed-trust-says-iph...
It was the opposite. US mobile operator stores charged upward of 50% to sell stuff on their feature phones, with cherry on top in the form of paid submissions.
You think that's bad? Grugnar charge 80% to sell rocks in front of cave, but Grugnar killed by Bugluk and then cave belong to Bugluk. Bugluk eat you and take rocks if you try sell in front of cave.
I'm replying to the statement that 30% was always a bad deal, by providing an example that shows that it was a clear improvement on the market of mobile development (as others did the same in this comments section).
In your cavemen logic the closest example would be that nobody killed the first guy; he was forced out of business because a new cave opened nearby and they were selling rocks much cheaper.
If only we could find a way to blame Putin for this.
Should be 50% at least.
Why would anyone use Patreon’s app?
What a weird comment lol. You can write a bot asking "why would anyone use (the product mentioned in title)" to every HN thread. That's how much it contributes to the discussion.
HN is becoming more and more like Stackoverflow. Half the comments pretend this is not an issue or irrelevant and the other half posts hasty, incorrect solutions.
Why would you think reality shows so many people using patreon app?
I genuinely don’t know, which is why I asked. Even on mobile I only ever use the website and can see literally no benefit whatsoever to there being an app.
TLDR: user reach and convenience (or avoidance of the inconvenience artificially created by the app store companies to ensure own monopoly).
App stores are another source of distribution of the platform. Apps create another engagement channel. Apps are another way to reach more people and keep them "hooked" longer (push notifications, tighter integration with the system). Poor performance of the website-only apps is often offputting showing lower retention and engagement metrics. People don't konow how to create a web app icon on the home screen, but know how to search for apps in the appstore.
Some platforms make website-based apps harder to create and manage (in the name of the resource optimisation or security). So no background players, no face-based logins, no airplay, battery drains way faster with web based apps, no proper file storage, hard to handle guestures, no restoration of the state of the pages, etc, etc.
When inside patreon company there is a question "do we do the native app or we keep the website" there is no good argument from project manager side why not to do the app as it increases all the metrics they care about and accept future possible risk that something will change from Apple side.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I can totally see how my original message may have come across as snarky but it was honestly not intended as such. I sometimes feel like I don't understand my fellow humans at all and this is one of those times. I can see why patreon benefits from users using their app, but as an occasional user of patreon, as I say I am baffled that it's the sort of thing users will install an app for. It honestly never occurred to me to do so and as I say I use the website.
Cheers. It's hard to distinguish genuine from non-genuine people online. Especially when they ask things which appear trivial from where one stands. Thanks for having patience.
Notifications? Video and audio playback? Really not rocket science.
Why would anyone spend any money on the appstore?
There's a kind of dissonance here that Patreon should be allowed to take a cut, being a platform on which creators can earn money - but Apple should not be allowed to take a cut, being a platform on which companies can operate their business.
There's "a cut" and then there's 30%. Pretending Patreon's cut is morally or even objectively equivalent to Apple's is a little bit of a stretch.
I agree that 30% is high but the arguments I see online are generally in favor of a cut to 0%, not a reduction. If you get into the weeds of what the cut should be then it gets messy, who gets to decide? How do you determine what is actually fair for all parties?
I would argue Patreon is far more parasitic than Apple in this case, they're shaving off 10% for a pretty simple service.
Payment processors are generally really wary of services like Patreon. Cohost tried to set one up and was unable to find someone willing to stick by a commitment to process payments for an equivalent service.
I think it's reasonable to say Patreon shouldn't take 10%, but you can't ring up Visa and get a regular 2-3% rate from them for something like Patreon, most likely, due to things like brand risk, chargeback rates, etc.
Then there's all the administrative overhead involved in disbursing payments to creators from all sorts of different legal jurisdictions and reporting information to the right government agencies. I can easily imagine the operating costs of Patreon being something like 7-8% of the money they handle.
I haven't seen anyone in this particular thread calling for Apple's cut to be 0%. I do think they could afford that, but a common refrain is that Epic's rate of 12% would be sustainable, and I agree with that. It's also the case that Apple moved to a gradual rate system where low-income developers only pay 15%, which kind of proves that they don't actually need 30%, they just want 30%.
Thanks, I didn't consider these things.
Apple has already been compensated in the form of $1,000-$1,500 for the phone.
Apple was also compensated by Patreon in the form of the developer fee.
This is the triple-dip attempt.
This is what I've never understood about Apple's argument that they need to be compensated for the R&D and ops costs of running the App Store. They already have this! It's the developer program fee!!
As far as I can tell it wasn't even raised in the Epic case either.
The dissonance is conflating criticism of someone's fee structure with a demand that someone be disallowed from charging a fee. That's just dishonest spin.
No one thinks Apple shouldn't be allowed to make a buck. No one thinks Patreon shouldn't be allowed to make a buck.
But Patreon's fees are near-universally held to be reasonable and fair, and Apple's are some bullshit.