There is a video link on the page from the original post where the Patreon CEO explains and reiterates the issues.
Notably, at one point, he says that Apple Platform brings in the most money to Patreon.
So there, looks like Apple brings in the money for Patreon. Apple seems to want a cut of that.
Apple users bring in the money for Patreon.
I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for.
really solid point. they shouldn't be able to.
However, your argument isn't what you think it is. It's extremely common for companies to sell/gatekeep (Or "pimp" as you put it) access to "their" user base. Think credit cards (Amex can charge merchants more as because their users tend to spend more) or even club memberships like Costco (They're certainly not letting telcos sign up users for free.)
I didn't buy my credit card. I don't own it. The credit card is just a little piece of plastic, totally useless without the line of credit, i.e, the service provided by the credit card company, in stark contrast with my computers, which can be used quite extensively without the App Store.
The credit card company is not gatekeeping "access" to me. I can pay for things with cash, a debit card, a check, etc. If I choose to pay with a credit card, it's because I wish to take advantage of the specific features of the credit card, the primary one of which is the ability to pay for the product later rather than at the moment of purchase.
You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer.
You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well. As well as a web user.
Amex charges higher fees, and offer specific services to their customer base.
Yes, which supports my point.
> You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well.
Who does this? Barely anyone. Most people can't afford to buy two smartphones, and even if you could afford two, why in the world would you use two of them simultaneously? That sounds extremely inconvenient, for no apparent benefit. Practically speaking, a smartphone is an exclusive relationship; you pick one at a time.
Yours is such a bizarre hypothetical.
In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. The piece of plastic is just a container for your credit card number, a means of accessing the service, a line of credit.
This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access.
The problem with Apple doing it is that they're abusing their market power.
You're still in need of examples, because I've already explained how credit card companies don't gatekeep access to me.
> Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access.
iPhones also cost a lot of money. Apple sold almost $40 billion worth of iPhones just last quarter. I'm quite certain that Apple is recouping its costs via hardware sales.
Costco makes the vast majority of its profit from membership sales, and not from the items they're selling. They absolutely gatekeep access to "their" customers, and regularly play hardball with their suppliers to keep prices low, even major ones like CocaCola. Suppliers that don't meet their terms don't make it to their warehouses. Same as Apple.
The difference is their market power.
In the context of iPhone, it means that the owner of an iPhone is not able to install software on their own iPhone without Apple's permission. It's a restriction on the owner's freedom.
Neither credit cards nor Costco memberships are analogous, because in the first place, there's no ownership involved, as I already explained. With a Costco membership, you certainly don't own part of Costco. You're simply buying temporary access to the store. In the second place, there's no restriction of customer freedom. A Costco member is free to walk across the street and buy Coca-Cola at any other store. Coke is Coke: it's the exact same formula in every can or bottle. It may be more expensive elsewhere, of course, and that's the point of the Costco membership. But there is absolutely nothing in the world restricting Coke and customers of Coke from coming together.
I have no objection to Apple having an App Store and setting terms for its App Store. It does this on the Mac too. My objection is that unlike on the Mac, the iOS App Store is the sole source of software, and iPhone owners are not free to shop elsewhere, again unlike Mac owners. The iPhone gatekeeps its owners in a way that the Mac does not.
It's not really about market power, because iPhone owners have never been free to install software from outside the App Store, not even way back in 2008 when iPhone sales were vastly smaller. And that's always been wrong.
If you want another example of customer gatekeeping, I'll give you one: John Deere tractors using DRM to prevent tractor owners or third-parties from repairing the tractor. That's wrong too.
You don't seem to understand that gatekeeping doesn't mean your myopic understanding of it.
In the examples given the businesses restrict access to (i.e. "Gatekeep") "their" customers to those that want access to them. In the Costco example, if Coke wants to sell to their customers, they'll have to come to terms with Costco before doing so. No agreement with Costco means no access to Costco customers, which is a lot of customers. That's all it takes to meet the definition gatekeeping, because that's what it is.
If you want a 1:1 example, then just look at gaming consoles, their whole business model depends on the same one giving Apple antitrust issues. Same gatekeeper restrictions.
Which then leads to market power. It's not that the business model is, or even should be, illegal per se, but abusing their market position to amass undue control over the market they operate in. That's when antitrust laws come into effect, and why we're seeing Apple in the crosshairs of the DOJ and not Nintendo.
It has everything to do with market power.
Specifically, it means no access to Costco customers inside Costco. But again, Costco customers are not forced to shop in Costco. They can shop anywhere they please, including but not limited to Costco.
That's the essential difference. iPhone customers are forced to shop for apps inside the App Store. They have no access to alternative stores, unlike Costco customers. Costco cannot prevent their customers from shopping for the same goods in other stores.
> If you want a 1:1 example, then just look at gaming consoles, their whole business model depends on the same one giving Apple antitrust issues. Same gatekeeper restrictions.
Agreed.
> It's not that the business model is, or even should be, illegal per se
I think it should be. In my opinion, it's one and the same with the right to repair. Once I pay for my computer and walk out the door, it ought to be mine to do with as I please.
I don't want to get into a debate about what "is" legal or illegal in the United States. As I see it, the law is whatever a majority of the Supreme Court decides it is on any given day, precedents and principles be damned. And antitrust enforcement has been practically nonexistent since Microsoft got a slap on the wrist a couple decades ago. I don't expect Apple to have much trouble here in the near future. Of course Europe is another matter.
I think it's even more base than that. Valve does it and users are happy (I have hot takes on this, but that's a later, inevitable discussion for another post). Because they continually re-invest in Steam to add more features, niceties, and convenience. Customers feel respected. Costco does it because ultimately customers who buy in bulk get deals that pays the membership back, as well as a very cheap food court.
What's the last "rewarding feature" Apple's really done to the app store that made customers feel respected? Not something like the Play Pass where "you spend 500 dollars and we'll give you a 5 dollar coupon!".
I'm genuinely asking as an android user and I can't even think of an answer on the Play Store. I had to look it up and family sharing seems to be the most recent option from 2021/2022-ish.
Agree on every point. But I think I will stop here. As this isn't the first time OP has been at this. It is also clear he doesn't understand difference between market access, market power and exclusivity. He is also rude and not the first time either.
I had the same feeling but I couldn't put it to words that well. But you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for this!
It is straightly Apple and Patreon. And in terns of Apple, they do think Patreon is accessing their customer base ( You ) and hence they want a cut of it.
> "you" does not even come into the equation
Second sentence:
> Patreon is accessing their customer base ( You )
Of course I come into the equation. Apple does not and cannot subscribe me to a Patreon without my initiative and consent.
You are acting as if someone is forcing you to do it.
>and contradicts itself.
To word it better, You the customer does not come between Apple and Patreon.
A "cut" in this case means such a high percentage of the transaction that if Patreon didn't pass the extra cost on to consumers/creators, they would make negative dollars on each iOS subscription. That really genuinely does not strike you as odd at all?
It doesn't strike you as weird or maybe like a possibly negative market effect that Patreon as a platform should be more profitable for Apple than it is for Patreon? I think most people would say that's a signal that something might be going wrong.
I'm not surprised.
The dirty little secret people won't talk about is that monetizing anything is so much easier on iOS because Apple users have, in some combination, more disposable income to offer, and are more willing to spend money.
This has been the elephant in the room for my entire career, almost 11 years working in apps. Monetizing on Apple is easier. Getting Apple users to put down money for good software is easier, and Apple users will pay more for the software they want.
There's a lot of reasons for this, many of them socioeconomic in nature that mark out the differences between your average iPhone user and your average Android user, and I don't want to get into that quagmire and be called elitist: all I'm saying is, when Patreon says the vast majority of patrons are buying from iOS powered devices, between iOS being easier to monetize and the general populace being on their phones far more than their computers; yeah that makes complete fucking sense to me. I believe him.
I'm not sure it's a quagmire: iOS devices are more expensive compared with the competition. I don't think this is up for debate.
Given that, a null hypothesis might be that since their owners are happy to pay more for their device that they have more disposible income?
That fact is neither dirty nor secret. I know you were using a figure of speech, but still. Everyone knows it.
>This has been the elephant in the room for my entire career, almost 11 years working in apps. Monetizing on Apple is easier. Getting Apple users to put down money for good software is easier, and Apple users will pay more for the software they want.
That's also pretty obvious, and likely because Apple users, whether mobile or computer, tend to spend more per capita on hardware than Windows or Linux users, simply because Apple hardware is more expensive.
It was already true on desktop, before laptop, and before mobile, on Apple devices.
if American manufactured automobiles were bringing in substantially more money to drive-throughs than Japanese ones - and if American made automobiles had a way to influence where you drive ... I think they would also get a cut from the drive throughs