Technology

34423 readers

188 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

101

Apple vs the “free market” (pluralistic.net)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Every artist, performer and creator on Patreon is about to get screwed out of 30% of their gross revenue, which will be diverted to Apple, the most valuable company on the planet. Apple contributes nothing to their work, but it will get to steal a third of their wages. How is this possible? Enshittification.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The linked essay is quite long and (at least for me) hard to read. One of the first links in the article is to this patreon blog post, that summarizes the issue well.

As we first announced last year, Apple is requiring that Patreon use their in-app purchasing system and remove all other billing systems from the Patreon iOS app by November 2024.

This has two major consequences for creators:

Apple will be applying their 30% App Store fee to all new memberships purchased in the Patreon iOS app, in addition to anything bought in your Patreon shop.

Any creator currently on first-of-the-month or per-creation billing plans will have to switch over to subscription billing to continue earning in the iOS app, because that’s the only billing type Apple’s in-app purchase system supports.

Before we go any further, we want to be crystal clear about one thing: Apple’s fee will not impact your existing members. It will only affect new memberships purchased in the iOS app from November onward.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Apple’s fee will not impact your existing members. It will only affect new memberships purchased in the iOS app from November onward.

Which is contradictory to the first line of the linked essay. Does it suck? Yes. But the author of this “article” is trying to build anti-Apple outrage with this piece. Let’s not pretend any company is altruistic. Even Patreon takes a cut.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Both sides?

If we want to talk mercenary companies, though, apple is pretty high on the FuckYouBuyMore scale.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which is contradictory to the first line of the linked essay.

Is it though?
Current sign-ups are likely through Patreons own payment system, which will stay as it is. It would be like signing up in the web version, then going on to use the iOS app. That wouldn't suddenly subtract 30% from a payment Apple has no control over.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is it though?

Every artist, performer and creator on Patreon is about to get screwed out of 30% of their gross revenue, which will be diverted to Apple

Yes, it makes it sound as though everyone is about to start losing the 30% to Apple No matter how their subscribers pay. Which if you read patreon’s blog post you will see is not the case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Ah, like so. I thought you were referring to the article on the Patreon website with your initial comment, rather than the article in the post itself.

You're right, the article is wrong. "Gross revenue" makes no sense.