> 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.
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.