It made me wonder, is supporting an author on Patreon ever a "DONATION"?
If you derive satisfaction from a product, expect someone to produce it, and support that process, then it is a purchase regardless of what someone calls it.
If you derive satisfaction from a product, expect someone to produce it, and support that process, then it is a purchase regardless of what someone calls it.
I mean pretty much every part of this is incorrect.
Lets say they are single in the USA and made $150k on Patreon:
(12% * 47150)+(22% * (100525-47151)) + (24% * (150000-100526)) = $29,3000 -> 20%
<https://support.patreon.com/hc/article_attachments/288492020...>
WEB
* $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.89 to creator, $1.72 to gov't [FED]
* $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.02 to creator, $2.58 to gov't [FED+10% State]
IAP + default price bump
* $14.50 sale -> $1.15 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $7.19 to creator, $1.80 to gov't [FED]
* $14.50 sale -> $1.16 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $6.29 to creator, $2.70 to gov't [FED+10% State]
Users who care about the cost increase will go to the website. The others will pay in app and be stoked that they can just go to one place to cancel any iOS subscription. If they use their Apple Card, they can literally click any transaction in the Wallet app to see exactly what sub they were charged for.
So much of these anti-console anti-appliance threads boil down to:
Value-adding experiences consumers want enough to pay for (such as peace of mind that anything bought here can be cancelled no questions asked) should be prohibited, because I don't want to offer that experience.
It's basically a social club that gets a pass on taxes because they believe in magic.
A quick search doesn't suggest that the apache foundation uses patreon...
We don't gate anything behind the payments, and it's extremely unlikely we'd ever even consider doing so.
Conceptually, why should a "donation" be any different than a "payment" in regards to the Apple tax? Regardless of their current legal agreement attempts to disambiguate these, they are conceptually quite the same. In one case you receive a good, in another you receive good-will.
Should Apple be entitled to 30% of these voluntary payments? Some of you will say "yes", but I'd bet pretty strongly the vast majority of the public would say "no".
And legislation will follow eventually, in my opinion, despite the US government/courts moving very slowly here.
Continued acts like these will only move up the timeline and increase the number of lawsuits which will eventually tip against Apple.
Apple believes so, because Apple is so arrogant as to think that the payment wouldn't have occurred had it not been for their hard work on the platform.
It's false, of course. It'd be like Bell Telephone asking for a cut of your profits because you negotiated a business deal over the phone. Or the cell phone carriers forcing you to pay them $7 for a 20-second ringtone.
We traded one villain for another.
Not trolling - and I think Apple is greedy here. Still I need pointing out how your arguments is not logical.
This is like saying you can only sell your product for a % of someone else profit.
Apple should be allowed to charge whatever they want - as long as they don't have monopoly on the process. That is the crux of the problem here. Monopoly is the problem not the percentages.
It should absolutely illegal for a company to tax your revenues like this.
It seems it only becomes a problem when there is external pressure that where accepting the giving of giving 30% to Apple is seen as the best of a bad situation. But that's what anti-monopolistic efforts are supposed to avoid.
Well, no, society is much better off with these things blocked off. There are immensely perverse incentives created.
The main one here is just straight up collusion because there’s not many distributors by nature. It’s dumb as hell that steam takes as much as it does. It’s not helped by clauses about not charging less elsewhere even if the fees are lower which should also be illegal
Sure. Why not? Typically society would only be concerned with the servitude becoming involuntary. Thus the right to be enslaved would be expected to also come the right to end enslavement at will. That said, in most jurisdictions marriage dissolution is happy to uphold involuntary servitude so we're not entirely consistent here.
> Suppose a guy wants to sell his organs?
Likewise, society might take issue with it because of its once and done nature. Decide that selling your organs was a bad idea and don't want to do it anymore? Too bad. You are already dead. However, relatedly, things like the sale of blood often is legally accepted as you can stop providing blood at any time if you find the association is no longer working for you.
Aside from the monopolistic considerations, the 30% offer to Apple would normally be acceptable to society because, like blood, one can stop offering it in the future should they no longer find it to be desirable. If it were a contract that states that you will pay 30% and on all future transactions for the rest of your life, even if you stop liking the idea, then society would undoubtedly take issue with it. But that in no way has any relationship to what is being talked about here.
Now, the monopolistic considerations are not typically accepted by society, but, indeed, we have gotten pretty lazy in doing anything about it.
Minimum wage.
Sure, which it can do because of the monopolistic position it has entrenched itself with. If that were cleaned up, it would no longer be in a position to do that. But the other commenter doesn't agree with you. He says that is an entirely different problem.
Is suspect you will soon find a monopoly, though, and that you’re merely confusing some external interpretations with what is defined within the context of this particular.
That is clearly not the same thing. Why don't you do the exact same thing? I mean, other than the monopolistic efforts holding you back.
(I recognize that you are trying to bring your own monopolistic definition to the table, and while I'm sure it has merit as a better definition, I fail to understand what value you think there is in trying to change the subject? Why not just stick to the topic in progress like everyone else, even if you don't love everything about it? The rest of us probably don't love it either, but that's not a good reason to toss the ball to the side in an effort to disrupt play because it isn't the brand of ball you have a preference for.)
The point I'm making isn't that Apple is doing good here - I absolutely hate it, actually. The point I'm making is that the issue isn't that there's a monopoly, strictly speaking, but that Apple engages in anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices which are harmful even without a monopoly.
I made the same mistake at one point, so I feel for you[1], but what was actually said was "monopolistic". That is not the same as a monopoly. One can act in a monopolistic manner without actually having a monopoly.
[1] But I don't feel for, and frankly find it incredibly strange, that you are now doubling down on your mistake after it was brought to your attention that you were speaking outside of the context of discussion.
I'm taking monopolistic position to mean a grossly dominant market position short of a monopoly. If you meant it as engaging in "monopolistic competition", that's another concept entirely that's irrelevant here. I also took monopolistic behaviour to mean behaviour seeking to monopolize.
literally all you have to do is `brew install altserver` and then be on wifi with your laptop once a week.
If you want to send $10 to someone using Venmo, it would be absurd for Apple to charge $3 of the $10 you are trying to send.
On the other hand, if Venmo charges a $1.50 fee for this service, it would make sense for Apple to charge 30% of that.
I don't think the word DONATION is irrelevant at all.
Tim Sweeney is using the word "DONATION" deliberately to make Apple look like someone that steals even the "donations".
You know like someone stealing from the church lockbox.
I am not supporting Apple here at all, I am just pointing out the attempt to manipulate public opinion.
"If you derive satisfaction from an series of artistic works, and you know the person who creates those artistic works, and you decide to send money to support that person..."
-----
edit: and this is closer to the reality, because plenty of people subscribe to someone's patreon (or donate to them in other ways) for "products" that they have already consumed, or because they want other people to consume those products.
For an example of the latter: when financing journalists with mostly or completely open newsletters on substack. People generally aren't paying journalists because they want to read exciting stories. They're paying journalists because they want certain stories and types of stories to be investigated and written. They're not people who are paying to consume.
It depends. Is the author giving away content for free or is it paywalled? There are both types of authors using patreon.
> then it is a purchase regardless of what someone calls it.
I'm comfortable saying that the authors who give it away for free and ask for donations are, in fact, receiving donations.
to me that is the main distinction, who is benefiting from making that monetary contribution
otherwise, it is just an issue of timing, did I pay up front or later after a tried and liked the product
If you donate to a church, you often also enjoy the perks that that church offers, paid for by donations.
If you donate to a public radio station, you probably also enjoy listening to that radio station.
> If you derive satisfaction
Semantically, would The Church also qualify, (if it weren't already legally exempted)? You take yourself to the church, talk to the church people, they tell you things, you think and behave in Their mental framework, you feel better in your life, deriving satisfaction.
Officient salaries / (number of services * average participation) = FMV0. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...