Apple comes under fire for Patreon commission (2024)

Apple is coming under fire for its decision to charge a 30% commission on Patreon subscriptions, which will either see creators receive less or supporters charged more.

John Gruber said that Apple was degrading its brand, while Macworld accuses the company of charging for providing negative value …

What is Patreon?

Patreon is a monetization platform for independent creators, like writers, artists, and videographers.

Creators can invite people to support them through a monthly payment, and supporters are typically rewarded with exclusive content, early access to public content, extended versions of videos, and private forums.

Patreon charges creators a commission in the range 9% to 12%.

Patreon’s unusual status

Apple itself has never charged a commission on these payments, though it’s not entirely clear why. Although the company does allow an exemption for optional gifts made by users, that applies only when 100% of the sum goes direct to the recipient, which isn’t the case with Patreon.

Back in 2021, the company’s CEO denied that it had a special deal with Apple, and suggested that the exemption was because the actual content is not provided through Patreon – the platform is only a means of allowing payments to be made.

Apple’s u-turn on Patreon commission

Whatever the explanation, all that is changing in November. Patreon announced that Apple was requiring them to adopt in-app purchases, with two consequences for creators.

1. 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.
2. 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.

That either means that creators will receive 30% less, or that supporters will have to pay more for the same benefits.

Apple ‘degrading its brand’

Commenters have mostly been unimpressed with the change of policy. Daring Fireball’s John Gruber didn’t mince any words.

This might epitomize the way Apple can be penny-wise but pound-foolish when it comes to the App Store. However much money they think they might get from these Patreon subscriptions once the Patreon iOS app switches to IAP, I refuse to believe it’s worth the further degradation of Apple’s brand that this dispute with Patreon is incurring.

The paying users of Patreon arefans. They are such dedicated and devoted fans of certain creators and artists that they choose to pay those creators money. And now these users are being informed that Apple is putting the squeeze on these creators and inserting themselves into a relationship that these fans see as being between them and the artists they support.

Macworld’s Macelope said that Apple was providing negative value.

Apple is providingnegativevalue and then taking a larger cut. Sure, it is providing access to its platform, but it’s forcing creators into funding models that work for Apple, not necessarily for them. A lot of creators create things when they have the time to create them, not on some pre-defined schedule. Apple’s obsession with subscription-based revenue, however, something that lets it level out its quarterly results, is now having a knock-on effect on other platforms […]

See Also

Alles Wichtige auf einem Blick

It’s one thing when Apple tries to get money from Amazon or Netflix, but Patreon creators are largely independent writers, artists, musicians, podcasters […] trying to make a little extra scratch doing something they love or simply need to do to get by. Apple, by way of contrast,is the richest company in the world.

9to5Mac readers had mixed views, but the prevailing sentiment was negative.

“I simply do not understand how Apple doesn’t see that moves like this hurt their brand.”

“You don’t mess with content creators, scraping the bottom of the barrel.”

“What a shame. Content creators or consumers hurt because Apple demands a vig on products and services that don’t use any Apple IP.”

9to5Mac’s Take

Patreon was always an anomaly, since other companies operating in a similar way do have to pay Apple’s 30% cut. Technically, Apple’s decision here resolves an inconsistency.

All the same, it’s not a good look for the Cupertino company, for all the reasons stated. Patreon creators are almost exclusively individuals and very small businesses, and if they had to pay Apple directly they would qualify for the small business commission of 15% rather than 30%.

As many are saying, this is yet another invitation by Apple to have antitrust regulators investigate.