Hacker News Reader

Comment by balozi | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

How can they gain after losing 30% to Apple?

Patreon doesn't lose anything to Apple - they give creators on Patreon a choice - charge Apple users more to cover the 30%, or eat the loss. I don't know what Patreon's take is, they are going to take the same either way. However they know their customers and users will lose from this and it is good for them to look out for their customers (it doesn't costs them much)

Patreon's take will not be the same. Apple's fee is charged first. So for all the creators that don't raise prices, Patreon is also getting 30% less, because they charge flat fees. And every creator that does raise prices will probably end up with fewer patrons, or patrons donating less, and will probably have a similar effect.

It also just kinda harshes everyone's vibe when they eventually realize they're being gypped and paying a lot more than others for the same thing, and that can cause people to just unsubscribe.

I believe Patreon's fees are a percentage of the total cost. i.e. if the payment is $10 and Patreon takes 10%, they'll still get $1, Apple get's $3, and the creator gets $6.

I'm not sure how Patreon will explain things to their creators, but no matter what the effect will be similar; about 30% less income for Patreon and creators alike.

According to App Store rules, you're not allowed to disclose the App Store fee to users. So Patreon is not allowed to explain to users that 30% is going to Apple, nor to explain that there are other options. I'm not sure if Apple regulates messaging to creators as well.

Customers leave when prices rise above their willingness to pay. Some customers will realize on their own that they can bypass Apple's fee by subscribing through the browser, but most won't (since Apple forbids even mentioning this trick).

This, imo is a solid argument for "fine then, we're just gonna pull our app and use mobile web exclusively."

Only if the users follow. If users decide they won't use the mobile web then patreon and the creators they represent lose. Nobody knows for sure, but there is a general belief that users will not follow (or at least enough won't follow).

If patreon pulls their app, and the former app users still want access to the content they patronized, they’ll go to wherever it is.

I think you'll be disappointed in little many users care once it's not 2 buton click convinient. Truly sad state of affairs for modern society.

Perhaps, although that requires experimenting the new fee model first.

It's too big of a decision to take without actual numbers, and having gone through it for a few months also helps on the communication side: on the surface Patreon at least gave it a try, and there's even a chance users are pissed off enough by the new model to campaign for that change and defend the move to their fans.

Why would that require them to do anything (except pull their app?)

But patreon earns off of those purchases, right? And since a 30% price increase deincentivizes purchases for customers, they'll have less purchases.

Or, of course, eating the 30% fee yourself deincentivizes you to use the platform (or upload content as regularly) if you opt for that one

I'd say it's a loss for everyone involved except for Apple. Since Apple now gets a cut from all transactions its hard for me to see this as anything else except hostile and arrogant

Relative to not having predictable monthly recurring revenue.

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

Taking away the options is not a win for the creators

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

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

Is there any evidence that Apple has actually made this "threat"? I'm not seeing anything other than what Patreon has claimed (and it seems that they are only recently going to begin to allow iOS purchases, which might mean they are bringing this upon themselves).

I am suspicious, because the specific change to per-creation billing is overwhelmingly positive for Patreon (and, as you pointed out, not for its users), from a business economics perspective (assuming they don't lose too many users over this). It also seems odd for Apple to press that point specifically.

I am a creator on the per-creation model and I got a very unambiguously worded email from Patreon this morning basically saying "if we want to be on the iOS store, Apple requires that we remove all billing methods that are not compatible with their payment method, and yours is not; in November 2025, you will be switched to the one billing method that Apple allows us to still have. If you would like to start earlier go to this link and hit this button to start the process." They used more words but they were very clear that this is a thing Apple is imposing on them as the price for being on the iOS App Store.

Right but just because they said it doesn’t mean they’re not playing fast and loose with the messaging. I’ve never heard of a single app where the off-app billing affected the inclusion of the app in the store. I mean maybe it’s true but that seems like it would be breaking new ground in App Store rules. I suspect Patreon is playing semantics here but would be happy to see evidence otherwise. To be clear, I’m taking about the case where Patreon could decide to show no billing details or links at all in the App Store, just like eg Audible. I think the problem is that Patreon still wants to offer billing options in the app.

> I think the problem is that Patreon still wants to offer billing options in the app.

We probably will never know which of Apple or Patreon is guilty, unless Apple is forced to yield it in a future discovery, or is raided by some agency in a probe.

> I’ve never heard of a single app where the off-app billing affected the inclusion of the app in the store.

most apps don't do payments like this to begin with.

>To be clear, I’m taking about the case where Patreon could decide to show no billing details or links at all in the App Store, just like eg Audible.

To be frank, I don't think Patreon has the same market force as Audible. Audible can definitely appeal to apple and make a deal that others don't get. Maybe Patreon did desire some of this, but I do put the blame on Apple. This is hardly the first time they arbiriarily played hardball.

Apologies, I somehow missed the memo three years ago that Audible turned on in-app purchases(1). I was thinking of the pre-2021 policy.

I’m still pretty sure that if an app has zero financial interactions at all in the App Store that Apple has no limitations on how the app’s financials work outside of the app. But I can understand that once you want to do anything in app, Apple might have restrictions on hybrid models.

1 - https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/16/you-can-now-buy-audiobooks-di...

Apple has been on a crusade against all payments not going through them for many years. I absolutely believe this is Apple’s fault, although I would have expected this to have happened much sooner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com