Tim Sweeney: " Now Apple is demanding a 30% cut of all Patreon DONATIONS
Apple’s move to take a 30% cut from Patreon payments made via iOS has reignited scrutiny of app‑store economics and platform power. Commenters debate whether Patreon contributions are truly “donations” or more like purchases, and contrast Apple’s fee with Patreon’s own charges and government taxes on creator income. Many see the policy as an abusive use of market dominance that harms independent creators and accelerates broader trends of short‑term, extractive business behavior.
Scope of Apple’s Cut and Recent Policy Change
- Several comments note Apple is now enforcing a 30% cut on Patreon payments made via in‑app purchase, after a recent App Store terms change triggered by some antitrust/monopoly investigation (jurisdiction unclear).
- Others say the written rules existed for years, but enforcement posture has changed.
Are Patreon Payments Really “Donations”?
- One camp: If you expect ongoing content or perks, it’s effectively a purchase or tip, not a charity donation.
- Others: When creators publish everything free and Patreon is just a “tip jar,” the payment is a donation in spirit.
- Some distinguish “donation” (to causes/charities) vs “gift” (to individuals), but others argue that’s a tax/legal nuance, not everyday language.
- Multiple comments say using the word “donation” in this controversy is emotionally loaded and somewhat manipulative.
Fee and Tax Breakdown
- A simplistic “30% Apple + 30% Patreon + 30% tax = 34% left” claim is challenged with concrete examples from Patreon’s own fee tables.
- Example paraphrased: on a $10 web pledge, Patreon plus payment fees eat ~14%, leaving most to the creator before income tax; with iOS in‑app purchase and Apple’s price bump to $14.50, Apple takes a large cut, but the creator still receives slightly more nominal dollars than from a $10 web pledge.
- State and federal income taxes further reduce net income; the combined effect is significant but not as extreme as some claims.
Apple’s Role, Monopoly, and Fairness
- One side: Apple provides real value (centralized subscription management, easy cancellation, unified billing) and can charge what the market bears; the real issue is monopoly/lock‑in, not the specific percentage.
- Another side: Apple is “injecting itself as a middleman” and taxing revenue that should flow from patron to creator; this is compared to phone companies demanding a cut of business deals negotiated over their lines.
- Debate over whether Apple’s behavior is truly monopolistic or just anti‑competitive and anti‑consumer; some call for breakup and utility‑style regulation of big tech platforms.
Comparisons to Tipping and Service Fees
- Several analogies to restaurants and country clubs replacing tips with “service fees” that management keeps, harming frontline workers and degrading service.
- One thread explores how card/payment system changes reduced casual employee “skimming,” while employer wage theft remains large; views differ on whether worker skimming was justified survival tactic or simple theft.
Patreon’s Own Fees and Alternatives
- Some see Patreon’s ~8% platform fee plus payment and FX charges as reasonable for the service.
- Others argue that at low pledge tiers $1–$3, Patreon’s effective cut can exceed 20%, which feels excessive for a relatively simple payments platform, especially compared with alternatives that charge less.
Motives of Platform Critics
- A few comments argue that prominent critics of Apple are pursuing their own business interests, not public good, and that users/creators are pawns in a revenue fight.
- Counterpoint: even if motives are self‑interested, creators and patrons would benefit if Apple’s cut were reduced or constrained.