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?

▲

seemaze an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>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.

	▲	odo1242 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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

▲

saimiam 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

TheDong 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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?

	▲	tapoxi 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

browningstreet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	mrguyorama 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	fauigerzigerk an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		>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.
	▲	Matl an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> 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.
	▲	sroussey an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The cost side of that protection is < 0.1% not 30%.
	▲	realusername 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They can offer to cancel or reverse subscriptions because you paid 5x that subscription amount just in fees.