> does anybody want to argue that Apple hosting the Patreon app on iOS provides more value to Patreon subscribers and creators than the existence of Patreon itself does?
Well, there is a simple way to test this... just get rid of the Patreon iOS app and just use a web version. Why does patreon need its own app? Why can't it just be web based?
I wish fewer companies had apps. I don't need an app for everything. I don't need every hotel I stay at to have their own app, I don't need an app to order food at a restaurant.
So why do companies make them? Because people spend more money when they can just use the in app purchase functionality. It is CLEARLY worth the 30% to most companies, because they keep pumping out single use apps that would be better as a mobile web page.
Heh. I didn't even know there was a Patreon app. There is an issue though. A lot of people (not me) use phone as their main computing device. And Apple is well known for keeping web app experience subpar compared to native app experience. Safari is lagging behind all the other browsers regarding modern APIs support. Bugs are not getting patched for years. At the same time other web rendering engines are not allowed on the main official app store. The other app stores are hard to get to and I consider them non-existent for regular users.
So, platform developers have to take iOS support very seriously or miss a lot of profit.
"The problem is cultural: a growing population do not know what the Web is."
I'd love to know where this idea started, because I'm not convinced it's actually based on any kind of real data. If it is, I don't think it's accurate for the past 5+ years.
Knowledge of the web is probably flat. And apps and smartphones have peaked in the West. Those are my anecdotes to add, since that seems to be what we're doing.
This line of thinking could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy the more it's spread, too.
Do people search for applications in the App Store or on the Web?
This 2023 study[0] indicates 48% of people discover apps by browsing through the App Stores, compared to 21% that discover them through Web search engines.
Is this a trend?
This 2015 study[1] indicates 40% of people browse for apps in the App Stores, compared to 25% (“1 in 4”) that discover them through Web search engines.
Does this apply to Patreon?
The CEO of Patreon had this to say:[2]
> iOS is actually now the most used platform for communities on Patreon.
We're talking about "knowledge of the web." As in, the ability to recognize what a URL is and use a browser to access it.
I posit this segment of the overall population in non-developing countries is flat for the last 5+ years. Apps surged for a decade and caused a lot of handwringing about the web's future, but it's clear the web is here to stay. The new AI craze wouldn't have even gotten off the ground without the web's corpus of recent and relevant data.
The web is just too frictionless. It's old and crufty and for old fuddy duddies (I don't know how Gens Z/Alpha view the web vs. apps, but that's not this conversation -- they know it exists and they're savvy enough to use it when necessary). It's like email. Will it ever be sexy "again"? No. But I think it'll always be there.
Kids don't use email... until they need to for their job or college, etc. Email will never die. The web will follow a similar trajectory.
If the money flees the consumer side of the web (more focus on paid native apps, the death of third-party cookies and possibly the ad ecosystem, etc.), that inches the content back to the 90s/early 00s ideal, which I'm all for. But that might be overly optimistic.
The idea that Safari is lagging behind is nonsense too. People live in their own fantasies. Press someone to explain what bugs or missing features they're specifically saying are holding the web back and you will probably get a very short list of nonstandard or experimental APIs like WebUSB.
I will say that if you've spent any time trying to develop a web-based app it becomes painfully obvious that Apple is doing the absolute bare minimum to support the browser on iOS. PWAs are barely functional.
My daughter’s boyfriend just bought a MacBook for college- his first Mac. He was immediately flummoxed going to the app store looking for apps that on a Mac are just websites.
He was somewhat appeased when I helped him find the Spotify Mac app though. Just going to their website just presented the music interface, with no links to the app download (which isn’t available in the Mac app store I would guess, since the BF hadn’t found it.)
Developers not allowing iPad apps to run on M-Series Mac’s are really hurting themselves with the younger set.
The irony of so many apps being electron wrappers is apparently lost on Apple. I'll just be happy if Teams could stop eating battery for once.
Though honestly jokes aside, this rule still doesn't make a lot of sense (to me). Webapps are capable enough. What does Uber's app, or the Google app do, that's different from their websites? Heck, even Apple's own notes app is simple enough that I'm fairly sure you could make a webapp out of it. I think tasks.org already has such a webapp/website.
The app store is also ridden with scams and crap. But the web is a horrible experience for normal people compared to apps, which the down voters here don't seem to understand, because they have adblockers etc.
Normal people need ad blockers about the same way they need clean water. I wish advertising was a viable revenue model for publishers, but it has been abused by large actors for so many years that large US government entities like the FBI recommend an ad blocker[1], and even the FTC lightly suggests it [2].
Many apps are also ridden with ads, can collect way more personal info than a web site, and unlike sites, it's way harder to block their ads. (E.g., installing a PiHole on your network vs installing a browser extension.) Altering an app is a DMCA violation of whatever cryptography they use; altering a web site is your legal right via extensions/userscripts.
I still remember when they refused to support forms constraints (there was the JS API, but not the UI designed to show users what they got wrong with their form, so you had to polyfill that specifically for Safari).
Forms are pretty darn important to 99.9% of web apps, this felt like active sabotage.
It is baffling how some random people will come to Apple's defense from the most unimaginable angles. "Safari is lacking but should be enough for 95% of the apps". Why do we even have the App Store then? For the rest 5%?
> Why do we even have the App Store then? For the rest 5%?
No. We have AppStore for the hundreds of thousands of apps that cannot be implemented using web tech. And for hundreds of thousands of apps that people could implement using web tech, but don't want to for various reasons, both big (too many workarounds) to small (abysmal performance for the simplest tasks)
> We have AppStore for the hundreds of thousands of apps that cannot be implemented using web tech.
These are not disconnected, though. The web COULD be made to support more of these use cases, but Apple wouldn't be able to collect 30% of the profits. Safari was a laggard for many years while the App Store was being entrenched.
> The web COULD be made to support more of these use cases
No, it couldn't
> but Apple
Apple has nothing to do with the fact that the web can barely render a page of static text and images without stutter. Almost every single app made with web technologies is a slow bloated abomination barely capable of doing a few primitive things right. And those that aren't have insane amounts of effort poured into them.
If you believe that Apple has something to do with it, why isn't there a flood of amazing smooth native-like apps on Android where none of the real or perceived limitations exist? Why is there a Google Play store with hundreds of thousands of apps?
There are a truck load of crappy SwiftUI apps that make your average bloated web app look like lean, FTL starships. They stutter so much with broken animations that you are afraid that your phone had a stroke.
Not sure what to address in your post since only your contempt against the web was of especial note. There are more apps in the Android Play Store than the iOS App Store. There are also third party app stores offered by Amazon, Samsung, including OSS ones like F-Droid. So..I am not sure what point you were trying to make, sorry.
Your argument that almost every web app is bloated is dumb. Where did you get that data from? Based on what you say the native apps aren't as bloated? You are talking out of your A.
I’m really not defending Apple here. I’ve always been pretty vocal against Apple practices, especially with the App Store policies.
But I do think that the situation we are in where any company have to develop an application when the web does it nice enough (and it’s especially true for products such as Patreon) is pretty ridiculous.
Of all the companies around, Patreon is one who could easily avoid this in app fee nonsense just by avoiding having an app in the first place (or at least having an app for subscribers, maybe the app is useful for content creators).
I’d totally prefer a situation where Apple wouldn’t act like dicks but by accepting this situation, Patreon is just legitimizing Apple behavior.
How can you be vocal against App Store and in favor of Web and Apple's effort on that front while Apple/Safari blocks multiple attempts of making the Web a good platform for web Apps.
That's the biggest complain of every web app developer but you are saying that Safari is already great for that while excusing Apple's behavior. Wow.
Please quote where I excused Apple’s behavior and where I said that safari didn’t lag behind other browsers. I just said that Patreon ran fine on Safari and so that Safari had enough features / API to do the job for Patreon. I didn’t say anything about safari being a good platform for web apps in general and I don’t understand where you read that in my comment.
So let me repeat my opinion : yes Safari lacks a lot of features and APIs to be a good application platform. Yes, Apple is a shitty company especially when it comes to app policies. But, in the current state of affairs, Safari is enough for simple applications/websites such as Patreon.
They can take their time, although they seem to implement the worst parts of it. Remote attestation and manifest v3. Who else could ever live without these features?
In this context, Chrome is just a browser, just like Safari is on iOS. The "problem" is less-technically-savvy folks (especially -- and ironically -- tech native youth) don't understand/care about the distinction between Apps vs a Website Bookmark/Shortcut.
That Patreon is even considering keeping the app is proof of this.
Depending on how overt Patreon's app is about ringing the alarm bells (imagine a "JUST MAKE A SHORTCUT and save 30% on everything!!!" popup) would just get them banned too, no doubt. Presumably criticizing Apple is a bannable offense.
>That Patreon is even considering keeping the app is proof of this.
No, that Patreon is "even considering" keeping the app is evidence that they get more valuable information about users and their habits from the app than they could from a website.
That's not disagreeing with me, but instead adding yet another argument for users to avoid as many Apps as they can.
If the experience in an app is form, graphs, and payments... use the website. It apparently saves that company 30% and, to your point, keeps your computing habits yours.
I doubt it. What evidence supports your claim? I took a look at the Patreon app permissions in Android, and it doesn't even ask for location which is probably the most valuable thing about users they could ask for.
That’s fine as an anecdata of n=1. But it doesn’t seem that apps are unpopular on Android, where as the GP seemed to suggest that Safari was the reason for app popularity. That just doesn’t seem to be true, given on Android we don’t see a large inversion.
How many of the apps you're complaining about are paying 30% to Apple? Hotels and restaurants definitely aren't.
Also a lot of companies make apps so they can get more tracking info. That value doesn't come from the Apple Store.
It's things like games that really get an advantage from being native and in the store. And that's largely a red queen's race, they need to stay on top and they'll pay out the nose to be the easiest install. Paying lots of money in a zero-sum situation doesn't mean they're getting much value in a more zoomed-out sense.
The ability to get more tracking info comes from producing an app which in turn comes from the Apple Store. I’ve never found myself wanting to use a Patreon app instead of their website, just like I found the substack app a complete waste of space and immediately deleted it.
I strongly disagree with that. The store is not the reason apps are good for lots of things. You can assign a lot of value to phone and OS, but Apple does not try to take a cut based on making the phone and OS because it would be hard to defend. The store pales in comparison.
Maybe s/he doesn't want to waste their time doing that and instead the company is politely signaling to their users that they're being charged junk fees by continuing to use the iOS app. Which is quite fair and transparent behaviour. Why take on Apple when you can correctly inform your users and push them to give Apple the boot?
Actually Patreon has played it perfectly by offering an android app, ios app and a website, and increasing the prices on the ios app to cater for the fees. The next thing should be to provide a clear notice on the ios app that lower prices can be found on the other apps. Then they will be able to objectively tell how many people value the app store's value additions enough to pay extra
Is it allowed to put a notice that Android and web users are given a 30% discount on the normal prices, which accidentally are only for iOS users.
Or just add a clickbait title: "See here to find out if you are eligible to discounted prices!" to a link to the web site.
Of course buyer has to be able to disable the 30% discount on the web site, to make it plausible that the normal prices are the ones on iOS. And all billing lines in the invoice always have to include a 30% discount line on Android and web purchases.
> Is it allowed to put a notice that Android and web users are given a 30% discount on the normal prices
No. You are not allowed to provide customers any details about other payment options. Apple has provisions that basically say, "you must not encourage the user to use a different payment option." And Apple can interpret that quite broadly; telling users that another platform has a discount would be treated as a violation.
> "See here to find out if you are eligible to discounted prices!" to a link to the web site.
This would be a violation of Apple's policies.
I sort of understand why people have a hard time grasping this, and I don't think it's through any fault of their own. It's because it's such an obviously anti-consumer, anti-competitive policy that I think normal people assume "it cannot possibly be the policy that Apple has."
There's almost a defense in audacity: Patreon must be lying about its options because, come on, Apple wouldn't seriously ban links, right? No company would be that bold, right?
The policy is so blatant that people assume there must be something they're misunderstanding about it.
> It is CLEARLY worth the 30% to most companies, because they keep pumping out single use apps that would be better as a mobile web page.
Based on the context given in the OP, this conclusion does not follow and is not fair.
1. Patreon is passing the 30% on to customers by default, or allowing creators to pay for it out of their existing income, so Patreon isn’t making any value judgement at all. They are leaving it up to creators and users.
2. Even if they weren’t doing (1), there are other factors in play that don’t make this a fair “experiment”. Most notably that established platforms like Amazon and Spotify _don’t_ find the value here, contradicting your assertion that most companies do.
Note: I didn't think Apple historically allowed (1), which also invalidates the “experiment”, but maybe terms have changed recently.
> Patreon isn’t making any value judgement at all. They are leaving it up to creators and users.
That’s incorrect. They are phasing out two of their three payment options (per creation and first of month) for all creators in order to have the right to operate an app on iOS. That’s a value judgment - Patreon would rather have an app than continue to make independent business judgments. They could have said “well, people can just use their browser on iOS” and it would have meant far fewer changes to their business. The browser only approach is clearly not preferred.
Clearly, having an app with easy payment infra is worth a lot, just as the person you’re replying to suggested.
The question is why the web never developed effective single sign on payment solutions.
In the OP Patreon leads with a pretty strong assertion that they would not be making these changes to their subscription model on merit alone. “Do this or you’ll lose X% of your users” is not Patreon making a value judgement on 30% margin, it’s post facto extortion.
Nothing is answering the question, “would Patreon itself take a 30% hit to margin just to operate natively iOS”? I am pretty dubious.
My point still stands that none of this is fair first principles representation of the value the platform provides. I’m sure the product conversation and user research inside Patreon HQ is much more along the lines of “fuck you Apple you’re making me choose my 10% iOS user base over the 7% of global users that happily use per-creation billing”. Not “oh Apple was right subscriptions are a more consistent payment model for users why didn't we realize that before thanks Apple here’s your 30% rev share for the idea let’s just pass that cost on to our iOS users they won’t mind”. LOL
I’m not taking about all that, I’m disputing your assertion that Patreon was not making a value judgment. They absolutely are. They are contorting their offering heavily to be able to stay in the App Store. Clearly they get some value from it.
You say there is extortion pushing them to do this. I don’t dispute this. But Patreon has a clear choice. Exit the extortion game and just be on the web not in the App Store, or stay in the App Store and deface their own business. They chose the latter yet you claim they made no value judgment. They did, they chose the Apple extortion path. It takes two to keep a dysfunctional relationship going.
I’m not suggesting this is good or defending Apples behavior. I’m saying they absolutely made a value judgment and went heavily to the “stay in Apple’s good graces” side. This is not some neutral thing.
Even if the web developed effective single sign-on payment solutions, it would make utterly no difference for iOS, since Safari would never support the same. You can easily bet your life, that Apple would reject this or only maliciously comply.
This is actually only an option if you qualify under Apple's definition of "reader" apps - ones that are pure content-consumption, nothing interactive etc.
If you don't qualify as a "reader" app, what you're suggesting actually isn't allowed - you're _required_ to offer IAP if you provide access to the service in-app
3.1.3(b) - "may allow users to access content [...] provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app"
The app I work on is a content app, but they decided it did not qualify as a "reader" app because we had polls alongside the content, which were interactive and therefore excluded us from the definition.
Spotify had a nightmare of a time getting to that point.
Same with Floatplane, a streaming platform from LTT.
If you actually try to copy Spotify / Amazon you find out very quickly they have exclusive deals and their own account managers. You actually will not get approved for 5-6 months if you try to copy them, and even use their same exact UI and verbiage.
This is the part of the problem with Apple app store.
As far as I've seen, this isn't any sort of exclusive on Apple's App Store or Google's Play Store.
Free apps that allow users to access paid subscription content aren't required to accept payments for the subscription through the app.
> Offer subscriptions through your own website or app rather than the app stores. This allows you to process payments directly and avoid the 30% fees. However, you'll need to provide your own payment processing and customer support.
You can say it's easy, but if you try to make your app only take payments off platform you will fight with Apple for months.
Apple will gladly say they aren't preventing you from taking payment off platform and then make your life hell. They are big enough that this isn't some accident, this is 100% on purpose.
The whole LTT saga went on for nearly 2 years, you can watch all of it through their podcast: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=floatplane+appl...
AND they had the benefit of having millions of viewer leading to them getting an active account manager... Imagine some random company.
While true in most cases (for anyone who disagrees look at PWAs being restricted in EU), Patreon’s app sucks butt and is honestly a worst experience in most ways than their mobile website anyway.
That bullshit to be honest. Not the lack of features in Safari, that's very real, but you don't need most of it. There is nothing that Patreon needs to do that could not be done by a 15 year old browser, let alone the newest version of Safari on iOS.
I can understand that developers would like to use certain feature, or that they'd make the job easier, but they are not required. Patreon isn't cutting edge web development, you could make it work on an IE8 if you cared enough. There it absolutely no features currently lacking in Safari that would prevent Patreon in moving to website only.
* An easy way to "install" the app. People want an icon on their home screen.
* To work offline and have a decent amount of storage for images and such.
* To start in a reasonable amount of time, even if the network is flaky.
And a bunch more of requirements. But just these three are hard to accomplish as a PWA. It should be possible, sure, but you'll be investing a lot of development time in what eventually amounts to an inferior experience when compared with a native app.
Exactly, it doesn't need native access to every bit of hardware to fulfill the needs of a simple app. If needed, Mobile Safari can do push notifications.[0]
Wondering about that, too - I always use the website on my ipad since a browser allows me to enlarge the font size when reading novels on Patreon (a feature that the app does not offer).
Not only can you increase the font size, but Safari has an immersive "reader mode" where you can change the font and color scheme, and even have Safari dictate the page to you. A massive percentage of organizations that develop native iOS apps do so because:
* Users have been indoctrinated by years of marketing (e.g. the "there's an app for that" ads).
* Safari hides the "add to home screen button" deep within the share menu, and home screen real estate is incredibly valuable. Native apps have the advantage of Smart Banners [1].
* For several years Webkit didn't support notifications, and as much as I hate annoying notifications, it's undoubtably useful from a business perspective to be able to ping users and remind them to use your application. Even after allowing notifications in Webkit, they made sure to introduce Live Activities which are exclusive to native apps.
Patreon allows creators to for a fee serve additional media content via it's app which is agnostic of media type. (IE music, coding, youtube etc.)
Most people pay for things for convenience and perceived value.
There is very little convience or perceived value in having to go to a mobile/safari/ios website, log in, and then download a for example 1gig podcast tothen have to find it in my "downloads" and then play via some media player.
It's also an issue of onboarding and discoverability. Creators would see a marked reduction in subscriptions if Patreon was not allowed placement in the app store.
I honestly don't think this is true. I think people tend to discover a creator they like first, and then click through to their Patreon. I don't think the reverse happens very often; I don't think many people install the Patreon app so that they can look through lists of people they could give money to. And if they do, they're clearly aware enough of Patreon to be able to use the website instead.
Assuming the average user accesses Pateron by clicking a link, there's really no reason for a dedicated Patreon app to exist. Apple Pay works just fine on websites, without demanding the App Store fee.
Why? What makes the app itself so attractive? Do Apple users not know what Safari is, or how to type in a link?
And it should be noted most Patreon users find their way there via YouTube, which itself automatically opens links to Safari, where Patreon can be subscribed to easily.
No, they actually don't know how to type in a link. Most people still don't know how URLs work. People still type in Facebook to the Google search box.
It's about friction. you could give users a PO box address and ask users to get out an envelope and write a check, and say if users really wanted to pay they'd do that. But we all know you're gonna lose out on a ton of money if you make it that hard for people to give you money. So it's about how much friction there is, and for some, an app is preferable to some website where I have to wade through a bunch of crap. Depending on what it is, if it bounces me to Safari, I might just get distracted and "just do it later" aka never.
> So why do companies make them? Because people spend more money when they can just use the in app purchase functionality.
I assumed it was so they could skirt around the privacy built more consistently into web browsers. Or that they are still stuck in the "There's an app for that" era that I think we have collectively left behind.
> Why does patreon need its own app? Why can't it just be web based?
Apple & Google Pay is my guess. Which I don't use, just because it's rent seeking and leads to this.
I use the websites. Don't want to install bloody apps which request every permission available. My browser has most of those set to denied. Don't even ask for permission, outright deny.
Apple Pay and Google Pay work with an existing card for normal (non-IAP) purchases. I don’t like rent seeking either but in this case it’s the standard CC payment flow. Nothing additional, just better security.
One doesn't need a phone or battery to use it, just a bank account and the plastic. Google and Apple now want to become Visa. Yes, their system is more secure.
There's an advantage to using in-app purchases when you doubt the developer, so either you think they're going to overcharge you or make it difficult to cancel. However this is not the case with Patreon
So I don't know what's the case here, but sounds like people who get confused by bubbles of different colors
Notifications. Performance. Responsiveness. Bandwidth. Offline access. And a lot of users simply find apps to be more convenient than browser bookmarks. I use the web interface for Patreon, but I can see why some users would want the app.
Why does Apple themselves have apps for things like maps, news, stocks, weather, video chats, etc? These all rely on web services and could theoretically be handled in the browser. I don't think any of these examples even provide users the ability to buy anything. Clearly Apple recognizes a value in some services being available through native mobile apps.
Isn't Patreon basically a web site where you can pay a subscription to ... something? Why would it need all that? Does the subscriber content get delivered through Patreon?
You and I may not want notifications, but a lot of people do.
> Does the subscriber content get delivered through Patreon?
Yes. Many of creators deliver media content through Patreon.
Announcements, updates, Q&As, early access to regular content, bonus behind-the-scenes content, and sometimes exclusive content. It all depends on the creator.
Apple Pay is a percentage paid by the bank, not the merchant.
In-app purchase is for an app being used to buy digital goods and services consumed in-app. The agreement for publishing apps says that you will give Apple a cut, and upfront purchase price and in-app purchases are how they collect it.
You can’t use in-app purchases to say order dinner to be delivered.
I think you're missing the point. You're focusing on the technical differences, but it's not outlandish to imagine Apple demanding a cut of all transactions on iOS over time.
It would start slowly, with a minor value-add (e.g., making it easier to put/use CC info in the secure enclave, or whatever incremental step they choose), and an announcement that in exchange for "easing payments and making them more secure", Apple will be charging X% of transactions with their system.
Apple Pay is a wallet that can be used in various places. For a store to accept Apple Pay, the merchant is given a virtual credit card to charge for payment. This costs the merchant the normal credit card processing fee, usually 2.9% + 30 cents.
On iOS, In-app-purchases (IAP) are used inside an app to purchase content. Because it's on Apple's device using Apple's SDK and APIs and hardware, Apple takes a 30% cut of the fee, so you charge $10, Apple takes $3 and gives you $7. Inside of the app, it uses Apple Pay, but because it's in the app, Apple takes 30%.
> But remember, Apple’s fees are only in the iOS app. Your prices on the web and the Android app will remain completely unaffected. You can always send your fans to this Help Center article which explains the iOS in-app fees relative to other platforms, so they can better understand the implications of where they choose to make their purchases.
Well, there is a simple way to test this... just get rid of the Patreon iOS app and just use a web version. Why does patreon need its own app? Why can't it just be web based?
I wish fewer companies had apps. I don't need an app for everything. I don't need every hotel I stay at to have their own app, I don't need an app to order food at a restaurant.
So why do companies make them? Because people spend more money when they can just use the in app purchase functionality. It is CLEARLY worth the 30% to most companies, because they keep pumping out single use apps that would be better as a mobile web page.