Apple could add an API for 3rd party subscriptions to integrate with that screen.

But Apple prefers to insinuate that you either pay them 30% or get scammed, and there is absolutely no option in between.

> Apple could add an API for 3rd party subscriptions to integrate with that screen.

They could. And the third parties would absolutely ignore it or make it a front door to their own subscription management, which could mean anything from something as simple as the current iOS subscription management (highly unlikely) or a link that opens a browser page that tells you to call a given phone number to cancel your subscription that is always "experiencing high call volumes" and "thanks you for your patience" after half-an-hour on the phone.

A service that is effectively un-cancelable really is the dream product: the person doesn't want it, so they don't actively use it (meaning you have no expense in providing it), but also don't want the hassle of putting up with your "are you sure?" tactics to cancel. Businesses make hundreds of millions of dollars annually on hard-to-cancel subscriptions in the US.

But then Apple could use their market power to remove those cheating apps from the app store, just like they are doing for the billing changes.

I'm just saying, it's a strawman argument to claim that Apple is doing this to "protect users". That's what they want you to think, but they're actually doing this to make a massive amount of revenue at the cost of literally everyone in the market, users and creators alike.

Edit: Econ 101 - the more inelastic the demand, the more the tax burden falls on consumers. One would assume that demand for Patreon is relatively elastic, at least when compared to things like food, housing, transportation, etc. Thus most of this tax burden will actually fall on the producers (i.e. Patreon and the creators), which explains why they're not willing to just take the 30% cut and will instead charge more for Apple users.

The thing is, it does protect users, in some ways. It just happens to earn them a ridiculous amount of money too.

I'd prefer to see them cut the rate from 30%, because it doesn't give anyone that much value, but it does create some for the users of the App Store.

I would prefer to see them forced by legislation (like the Digital Markets Act) to allow some sort of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing on the App Store. Ideally they would be required to allow third-party marketplaces and self-signed app distribution, then marketplace competition could push their take rate towards 0%.

I understand that some things are hard to cancel and some companies are malicious about this. Back in the pre-app days, this came up with "free samples" and gym memberships. The general solution back then was to either (a) not get scammed or (b) use a unique credit card that you could easily cancel. With the advent of things like Privacy cards, you can pretty easily do this without an App Store intermediate.

That said, they could keep the benefit for users and the fee for Apple Pay, but then not require that apps exclusively use Apple Pay. They could even require that all apps call an API to issue some scary warning that the subscription will not be manageable in your Apple Pay dashboard, make sure you trust this app developer, are you sure you want to continue? etc etc

Plus there are plenty of other billing services that can do this. I already mentioned Privacy cards. If you sign up for PayPal recurring payments, they also have an authorizations dashboard that you can easily use to revoke payment permissions. Neither of these companies needs to charge a 30% fee to offer that. Both charge somewhere around the "standard" CC fee of 3%.

That's fine, but that doesn't happen on Android where the restrictions are more lax. (Well, it does, but in rates that are too low to justify imposing the excessive measures iOS employs)

I empathize with your struggle, but it's a pathetically weak argument against letting Apple continue abusing their position. If your parents are clicking on random email or SMS links, that's an issue outside of your OS security policy. They could be autofilling their credit card details on a malicious site in Safari or iMessaging their SSN to someone with a spoofed CallerID. My parents both use Android and let me tell you, worrying about them activating Developer Mode on their phone is the last thing I go to sleep worried about. In a post-Pegasus world you and I both know there are bigger fish to fry.

Do your parents a favor, talk to them about digital security if you're actually worried about them. Your other choice is to let reductive paranoia consume you until you're only comfortable when their web browser and contacts list is locked in a straitjacket.

> I'm just saying, it's a strawman argument to claim that Apple is doing this to "protect users".

It can absolutely be both, which is why this isn't such a cut and dry issue.

30% is too high. Charge whatever Visa charges.

Without commenting on the appropriate level of charges, Visa and Apple provide very different services. For example, with Apple, you get administration of taxes in many locales as well as dealing with currency exchange. Also, I don't think sellers have to deal with chargebacks, although Apple might have their own version of a chargeback, but I am not sure.

> Also, I don't think sellers have to deal with chargebacks, although Apple might have their own version of a chargeback, but I am not sure.

They absolutely do, just through Apple, "Disputes".

Apple will refund the user the full purchase price (that's fun, $10 app, you get $7 after the Apple cut, and on refund, you have to refund $10, so you're actually out money).

And too many disputes will get your developer privileges restricted or revoked.

That’s pretty shitty of Apple.

What would you pay to have access to the most affluent mobile users with CC's preloaded and ready to buy? That's what Apple is charging for. It must be worth quite a bit since people either pay or complain up and down they are forced to pay it or they don't have a business.

IIRC, the judge in the EPIC case even said there was no issue with 30%.

You mean for Apple to charge that on top of the Visa charges, which Apple is paying out of the 30% now, I assume? Apple is the merchant of record for App Store txns and pays all the transaction fees, as well as all their other costs, out of the 30%. (I don't know how much all that adds up to, but the total is strictly greater than sum of the credit card fees.)

I'll bet if you polled most people, even non-Apple customers, they'd be okay with paying a little extra for the convenience of an app store. The problem is that it's 30%.

The problem is that it's the only option across the OS. There's no reason this option couldn't exist with other options, built by the app developer so it cost Apple nothing.

The problem is that the fee is not charged to the Apple user on a line item in addition to the content price. Like all markets are supposed to operate. It's information hiding.

Do you know the markup at any retailer? Maybe in aggregate if I look at the financial statements or some specialty retailers like car dealers?

I can find that price by bidding down or calculating it. Retail is no mystery.

I thought it was 15% for the first million in revenue, then 30%.

But that's not designed in a way which considers that despite the app bringing in millions in total revenue, each individual creator makes far less than that.

Fun fact: governments can solve both problems! They can break up monopolies AND regulate dark patterns.

If you find this much value in it then you'd be happy to be shown the alternatives at -30% the cost and you'd still use it. But Apple doesn't allow users to see this information.

While I agree that the peace of mind for subscribing through a service like Apple or Google is nice (or any other service that you know will be easy ahead of time), Patreon's model is the same. It's really easy to subscribe and unsubscribe from individual creators. There's no benefit to the user from adding Apple into the mix.

Then you should get the option to pay a 30% surcharge for that privilege.

Others can choose to use virtual credit cards that come for free (or cheap) from their bank or privacy.com for that purpose.

Unequivocally, yes. I already do so.

The beauty of capitalism is that you can choose.

You don't even have to have a smartphone at all and if you decide to have one, you don't HAVE to have an Apple device.

There are countless other brands to pick.

If you truly hate the 30% thing, then don't buy an iPhone.

I don't have any Apple devices, but as a Patreon customer, I'm going to be affected by this requirement that Apple is forcing upon Patreon.

The entire point of this article is that Apple is abusing their market power to force other companies to do things that affect people who are not even Apple customers.

But regardless, your argument is laughably wrong. We don't have "countless other brands". We have iOS and Android. They are not fungible. There are pros and cons to both platforms, and sometimes it's impossible to reconcile a showstopper negative on one platform with a different showstopper negative on the other. Or to reconcile a must-have feature on only one platform, even though that platform also has a showstopper negative.

Yes, it's nice that there are many Android manufacturers, but they are still largely very similar products, with the "differentiation" being annoying most of the time, not a benefit. The idea that we have "choice" is hilarious.

Anyway, any time someone suggests "don't have a smartphone at all" as an alternative, my respect for their opinion drops to zero.

Patreon built their organization partly on how easy it is to get donations from Apple users through the app ecosystem. As an Apple user, I personally spend a lot more on apps every month than in my pre-Apple days because it feels secure, easy, and premium.

So even as a non-Apple user, you benefited from Apple's system. The same is true for Patreon, and for the content creators.

As for your complaints about the dearth of ecosystems, I guess the rest of the world can only apologize to you for not pouring even more hundreds of billions of dollars into developing an ecosystem that fits your requirements * just so *. (By the way, I was talking about phone brands, nice work shifting the goalposts)

> Anyway, any time someone suggests "don't have a smartphone at all" as an alternative, my respect for their opinion drops to zero.

Well, I am devastated. But "no smartphone" is indeed one of the options, as is "Apple smartphone", "Samsung smartphone", "flip-phone", and many others. Can't find one that is perfect in every way? Welcome to the real world.

And yet the point of this post is that, thanks to Apple's dominance, all users will lose the "pay per finished production" payment option regardless of whether they use an iPhone or not.

The beauty of capitalism is that you can choose the color of your car as long as it's black.

You act as if all the iPhone Patreon donations would've rolled in regardless of the app / app store, but also that Apple is somehow going to kill it. It's logically inconsistent.

1. If Apple plays a key part in getting those donations, then the 30% is not a problem: the content creator is not getting 70c on the dollar; the content creator is getting 70c instead of 0c. Apple gets people to donate that wouldn't otherwise have done it. There's a ton of money flowing through the Apple ecosystem purely because Apple made it a premium experience.

2. If Apple does not play a key part in getting those donations, then the 30% is still not a problem: the content creators / app makers / Patreon can simply switch to some other platform and get the same results.

The beauty of capitalism is that we used to have horses and shoes only, then black cars became an option, and now you can buy any color you like. I guess some people think they appear to be clever, thoughtful, and fair-minded finding an issue with every step forward.

> The beauty of capitalism is that we used to have horses and shoes only, then black cars became an option, and now you can buy any color you like.

I'm pretty sure it's at best wildly misleading to argue that the reason cars were invented is "capitalism".