[danShumway]

So... they would give Patreon money by going to their website?

Is this a niche market that would never have been available to Patreon that Apple is helping Patreon access, or is this Apple needing to en-mass protect its users from themselves as a result of them being too.. I don't know, weak willed(?) not to pay for Patreon using another method?

It's not both.

[tshaddox]

Well, for a popular and somewhat mainstream service like Patreon, it likely would be both.

Patreon likely gets some users who first discover Patreon via the iOS app and who would never go to the Patreon website but who would be comfortable making an iOS in-app purchase.

And Patreon also likely gets some users who first discover Patreon via the iOS app and would be comfortable going to the Patreon website to subscribe if the iOS app didn't have in-app purchases.

I was referring to that first group, which I suspect is a small portion of Patreon's total userbase, but I suspect it's a niche that Patreon is very interested in (both because Patreon can't engage them through any other channel, and because they probably have above-average discretionary spending).

The whole "protecting users from themselves" thing is just a very tired argument. You might as well say that an operating system implementing memory protection is "protecting users from themselves." Or a software vendor offering security updates is "protecting users from themselves."

[danShumway]

> but I suspect it's a niche that Patreon is very interested in (both because Patreon can't engage them through any other channel, and because they probably have above-average discretionary spending).

It's interesting that the existence of this supposed niche is entirely contained within the larger group of people who are kept unaware of the choice being made. Makes it a little hard to estimate or talk about what that niche actually is since they're always going to be an invisible subset of the users who are unaware of other payment methods or of the increased fees they're paying, and who are by Apple policy not allowed to be informed.

> You might as well say that an operating system implementing memory protection is "protecting users from themselves."

I guess readers can decide for themselves whether a store banning telling consumers about an alternative payment method is the same thing as memory protection.

I would suggest that one key difference between antivirus/memory protection and Apple's app store policies is that antivirus doesn't need to desperately try to hide the fact from me that it exists.

[tshaddox]

> It's interesting that the existence of this supposed niche is entirely contained within the larger group of people who are kept unaware of the choice being made.

I doubt a significant portion of this niche is “being kept unaware” that Patreon has a website. They probably would simply never, ever find themselves on Patreon’s website. This is basically the polar opposite of myself, who has used Patreon for many years but have never remotely considered using their smartphone app. Different people are different.

> I guess readers can decide for themselves whether a store banning telling consumers about an alternative payment method is the same thing as memory protection.

The question isn’t whether they’re “the same.” A better question to ask is how satisfied are Apple’s users compared to users of other competing products, and what can that be attributed to?

[danShumway]

> I doubt a significant portion of this niche is “being kept unaware” that Patreon has a website.

If this was true then Apple wouldn't have provisions against informing them.

People keep on saying that this is some informed choice. It's not. If it was an informed choice, Apple would not have a policy against informing them.

> A better question to ask is how satisfied are Apple’s users compared to users of other competing products, and what can that be attributed to?

We don't know how satisfied they are compared to others, because Apple has a policy against informing them about competing products.

This is an apple-to-oranges comparison. If your grocery store charges you $10 for a loaf of bread and the store down the street charges $5 and you don't realize that you could get the bread for $5, then you'd probably be satisfied with your purchase.

It doesn't mean you're not being exploited.

[tshaddox]

> I would suggest that one key difference between antivirus/memory protection and Apple's app store policies is that antivirus doesn't need to desperately try to hide the fact from me that it exists.

There is in fact an enormous industry of software and operating system features designed to make it as difficult as possible for the user to circumvent.

[danShumway]

> difficult as possible for the user to circumvent.

But not as difficult as possible for the user to be aware of. If an antivirus installed itself on my computer without my knowledge and hid the fact that it existed from me, we would call that malware.

Apple doesn't have a provision that makes it difficult for the customer to use other purchase methods, it has a provision that makes it difficult to inform the customer that alternate purchase methods exist.

And again, there is no reason for Apple to care so much about that unless they think it's beneficial to Apple for the customer not to know what choice they're making. Apple's policy is not the equivalent of an antivirus program or a security measure, Apple's policy is the equivalent of a car salesman trying to make it impossible for you to comparison shop or look up competing prices.

Because "you'd have a worse experience" if you used a competitor. Sure. That's definitely why Patreon can't inform users in the app that they're paying 30% more per-subscription. /s Also I'd have a worse experience with another Internet provider and that's why Comcast needs to make it difficult to compare price rates with other companies. Come on.