Apple to soon take up to 30% cut from all Patreon creators in iOS app

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overview & Immediate Impact

  • Commenters overwhelmingly see this as predatory: Apple inserting itself between patrons and creators to skim revenue without adding proportional value.
  • Many stress this isn’t about Patreon’s app sale, but about Apple taxing creators’ income (a “second-level rent”) on top of Patreon’s own fee.

“30% Cut” – Fairness, History, and Scope

  • Several recall 30% originally feeling “reasonable” in 2008 vs carriers taking 50–90% on feature phones or early software distributors taking large margins.
  • Others argue 30% was always excessive compared with card processors (~2–3%) and is now absurd given scale, automation, and that App Store discovery is weak for most devs.
  • Distinction made between:
    • One-time paid apps where a store provides real distribution/hosting.
    • Ongoing external transactions (subscriptions, donations) where Apple adds little but still demands its 30%.

Monopoly Power, Regulation, and Courts

  • Many frame this as a duopoly/monopoly problem: creators can’t realistically avoid iOS and Android, and iOS forbids real alternative stores and payment rails.
  • Epic v. Apple is cited: courts briefly forced Apple to allow external links, Apple answered with a 27% “external” commission, then litigation and appeals continued. Consensus: “malicious compliance.”
  • DOJ and EU actions (DMA, antitrust suits) are frequently referenced; some want aggressive antitrust, others distrust regulation or fear regulatory capture.

Apps vs Web & Workarounds

  • Multiple commenters say: cancel any Patreon iOS in‑app subscription and re‑subscribe on the web to avoid the “Apple tax.”
  • Others ask why Patreon needs an app at all; suggested alternatives: PWAs, web-only flows, or opening an in‑app browser to a web checkout (where allowed).
  • Counterpoint: non-technical users heavily prefer “there’s an app for that,” and iOS/PWA limitations (Safari quirks, no true integration) make pure-web less viable.

Patreon’s Own Role

  • Some argue Patreon is also using Apple as cover to force its preferred “charge at signup” billing model and push away from monthly-first-of-month billing.
  • Patreon’s own ~5–10% cut is criticized as “rent seeking,” but most see Apple’s 30% on top as the bigger structural problem.

Broader Sentiment & Responses

  • Strong emotional backlash: comparisons to mafia/feudal lords, calls to boycott Apple services or switch to Android/GrapheneOS, or move to alternative, protocol-based funding (e.g., Nostr/Zaps).
  • Minority view: Apple built the platform and can charge what it wants; if users stay and pay, that’s the market. Majority response: that logic fails when platform owners also control distribution and can ban alternatives.