daring-rss

Apple Newsroom:

Starting with iOS 18.1, developers will be able to offer NFC
contactless transactions using the Secure Element from within
their own apps on iPhone, separate from Apple Pay and Apple
Wallet. Using the new NFC and SE (Secure Element) APIs,
developers will be able to offer in-app contactless transactions
for in-store payments, car keys, closed-loop transit, corporate
badges, student IDs, home keys, hotel keys, merchant loyalty and
rewards cards, and event tickets, with government IDs to be
supported in the future.

Reading between the lines, I do not think this will grant third-party apps access to the double-tap-side-button action to initiate a payment. And, I say, that’s a good thing. That’s something Apple should reserve for Apple Pay. I’m not sure the European Commission will agree with me.

Whoops: I should have read more than the first paragraph:

To make a contactless transaction within an app that utilizes
these APIs, users can either open the app directly, or set the app
as their default contactless app in iOS Settings, and double-click
the side button on iPhone to initiate a transaction.

We regret the error, and the appropriate people have been sacked.

 ★ 

Apple Newsroom:

Starting with iOS 18.1, developers will be able to offer NFC
contactless transactions using the Secure Element from within
their own apps on iPhone, separate from Apple Pay and Apple
Wallet. Using the new NFC and SE (Secure Element) APIs,
developers will be able to offer in-app contactless transactions
for in-store payments, car keys, closed-loop transit, corporate
badges, student IDs, home keys, hotel keys, merchant loyalty and
rewards cards, and event tickets, with government IDs to be
supported in the future.

Reading between the lines, I do not think this will grant third-party apps access to the double-tap-side-button action to initiate a payment. And, I say, that’s a good thing. That’s something Apple should reserve for Apple Pay. I’m not sure the European Commission will agree with me.

Whoops: I should have read more than the first paragraph:

To make a contactless transaction within an app that utilizes
these APIs, users can either open the app directly, or set the app
as their default contactless app in iOS Settings, and double-click
the side button on iPhone to initiate a transaction.

We regret the error, and the appropriate people have been sacked.

Read More 

Spotify, in an update to an older post on the company blog:

While we are still many steps from a level playing field, we are
beginning to see progress because of the European Commission’s
historic decision on March 4, 2024 which found that Apple
violated the EU’s antitrust laws and fined them over €1.8
billion. Starting today, Spotify is opting into Apple’s
“entitlement” for music streaming services, created after
the European Commission’s ruling. This means we will finally be
able to offer something as obvious as it is overdue: iPhone
consumers in the EU will now see pricing information for Spotify
in the app and the fact that they can go to our website to
purchase items directly.

Jess Weatherbed, at The Verge:

One thing that’s missing is the ability to click a link to make
those purchases from outside the Apple App Store. Spotify says
it’s opting into the “music streaming services entitlement”
that Apple introduced after being served a €1.84 billion (about $2
billion) EU antitrust fine in March for “abusing its
dominant position” in music streaming, rather than accepting the
complicated new developer terms Apple outlined last week.
Unlike the entitlement, the latter would allow EU developers to
link to external payment options with Apple taking a cut of
off-platform sales. Spotify clearly doesn’t want to do that,
saying that Apple is demanding “illegal and predatory taxes.”

So after all this, all that Spotify’s app is now doing differently in the EU is (a) showing the prices of its available plans, and (b) telling users, without offering a tappable link, that to sign up, they need to go to Spotify’s website. It doesn’t even tell you the URL of the website, it just says “To buy Premium, go to the Spotify website.”

For anyone who isn’t paying close attention to these arguments over Apple’s draconian anti-steering terms for apps, it is surely very surprising that it took years of legal wrangling and a $2 billion fine (which, it should be noted, Apple hasn’t yet paid, and which quite possibly will be reduced or thrown out upon appeal) just to allow Spotify to present this information to users. Just to tell them the price and tell them they need to go to Spotify’s website to sign up.

These anti-steering provisions are indefensible. They make Apple look bad in the court of public opinion, and they look even worse in actual courts of law.

 ★ 

Spotify, in an update to an older post on the company blog:

While we are still many steps from a level playing field, we are
beginning to see progress because of the European Commission’s
historic decision on March 4, 2024 which found that Apple
violated the EU’s antitrust laws and fined them over €1.8
billion. Starting today, Spotify is opting into Apple’s
“entitlement” for music streaming services, created after
the European Commission’s ruling. This means we will finally be
able to offer something as obvious as it is overdue: iPhone
consumers in the EU will now see pricing information for Spotify
in the app and the fact that they can go to our website to
purchase items directly.

Jess Weatherbed, at The Verge:

One thing that’s missing is the ability to click a link to make
those purchases from outside the Apple App Store. Spotify says
it’s opting into the “music streaming services entitlement”
that Apple introduced after being served a €1.84 billion (about $2
billion) EU antitrust fine in March for “abusing its
dominant position” in music streaming, rather than accepting the
complicated new developer terms Apple outlined last week.
Unlike the entitlement, the latter would allow EU developers to
link to external payment options with Apple taking a cut of
off-platform sales. Spotify clearly doesn’t want to do that,
saying that Apple is demanding “illegal and predatory taxes.”

So after all this, all that Spotify’s app is now doing differently in the EU is (a) showing the prices of its available plans, and (b) telling users, without offering a tappable link, that to sign up, they need to go to Spotify’s website. It doesn’t even tell you the URL of the website, it just says “To buy Premium, go to the Spotify website.”

For anyone who isn’t paying close attention to these arguments over Apple’s draconian anti-steering terms for apps, it is surely very surprising that it took years of legal wrangling and a $2 billion fine (which, it should be noted, Apple hasn’t yet paid, and which quite possibly will be reduced or thrown out upon appeal) just to allow Spotify to present this information to users. Just to tell them the price and tell them they need to go to Spotify’s website to sign up.

These anti-steering provisions are indefensible. They make Apple look bad in the court of public opinion, and they look even worse in actual courts of law.

Read More 

Eli Blumenthal, reporting for CNet:

Looking for Google’s new Pixel 9 Pro Fold? You won’t find it at
AT&T. The carrier has confirmed to CNET that it will not be
offering Google’s newest Pixel Fold to its customers. The decision
would be a blow to Google’s device ambitions as it would make it
harder for it to reach millions of AT&T customers. In its
second-quarter earnings last month the carrier revealed that it
had nearly 72 million postpaid phone users. […]

AT&T sold last year’s original Pixel Fold and still plans to sell
much of the rest of Google’s new lineup including the Pixel 9, 9
Pro, 9 Pro XL and Pixel Watch 3. It will have deals for those
looking to upgrade to one of those phones.

Backs up my hunch that none of these foldables — including Google’s, regarded by some as the best — are selling well.

 ★ 

Eli Blumenthal, reporting for CNet:

Looking for Google’s new Pixel 9 Pro Fold? You won’t find it at
AT&T. The carrier has confirmed to CNET that it will not be
offering Google’s newest Pixel Fold to its customers. The decision
would be a blow to Google’s device ambitions as it would make it
harder for it to reach millions of AT&T customers. In its
second-quarter earnings last month the carrier revealed that it
had nearly 72 million postpaid phone users. […]

AT&T sold last year’s original Pixel Fold and still plans to sell
much of the rest of Google’s new lineup including the Pixel 9, 9
Pro, 9 Pro XL and Pixel Watch 3. It will have deals for those
looking to upgrade to one of those phones.

Backs up my hunch that none of these foldables — including Google’s, regarded by some as the best — are selling well.

Read More 

Juli Clover, writing last week for MacRumors:

Distraction Control can be used to hide static content on a page,
but it is not an ad blocker and cannot be used to permanently hide
ads. An ad can be temporarily hidden, but the feature was not
designed for ads, and an ad will reappear when it refreshes. It
was not created for elements on a webpage that regularly change.

To use Distraction Control, go to the Page Menu and select Hide
Distracting Items. You can select an area on the page that you
want to hide, and static content that you select will remain
hidden. It is a good way to eliminate the pesky popovers that show
up when browsing online stores, reading articles, and more.
iPhone, iPad, and Mac users need to opt in to
hiding elements on the page, and Apple says that nothing is hidden
that is not proactively selected.

When hiding a cookie banner or GDPR popup with Distraction
Control, the function is the same as closing a banner without
submitting website preferences at all.

This is a really great feature, and the animations it employs are delightful.

Just last week, I found myself shaking my head at this screenshot posted by Nilay Patel of CBS News’s website. It’s ridiculous and sad that the state of web design has sunk so low, but the web browsers themselves — led by Safari — continue to allow users to fight back.

 ★ 

Juli Clover, writing last week for MacRumors:

Distraction Control can be used to hide static content on a page,
but it is not an ad blocker and cannot be used to permanently hide
ads. An ad can be temporarily hidden, but the feature was not
designed for ads, and an ad will reappear when it refreshes. It
was not created for elements on a webpage that regularly change.

To use Distraction Control, go to the Page Menu and select Hide
Distracting Items. You can select an area on the page that you
want to hide, and static content that you select will remain
hidden. It is a good way to eliminate the pesky popovers that show
up when browsing online stores, reading articles, and more.
iPhone, iPad, and Mac users need to opt in to
hiding elements on the page, and Apple says that nothing is hidden
that is not proactively selected.

When hiding a cookie banner or GDPR popup with Distraction
Control, the function is the same as closing a banner without
submitting website preferences at all.

This is a really great feature, and the animations it employs are delightful.

Just last week, I found myself shaking my head at this screenshot posted by Nilay Patel of CBS News’s website. It’s ridiculous and sad that the state of web design has sunk so low, but the web browsers themselves — led by Safari — continue to allow users to fight back.

Read More 

Jonathan Hoefler, on Threads:

The Harris/Walz logo got a smart and subtle haircut this weekend,
which, like the very best typography, is making everything better
while drawing very little attention to itself.

I read a lot of comments about political logos… Having helped
shape the logo of every Democratic president in the twenty-first
century (hflr.io/biden, hflr.io/obama), let me say from
experience that campaign typography is completely unlike graphic
design: it’s a strange and fascinating agility sport, marked by
limited information, a ticking clock, unimaginable pressures, and
serious consequences. It’s Iron Chef, but in Adobe Illustrator.

The “Harris” was fine all along, and only ever-so-slightly tweaked in this updated logo. It was the “Walz” that needed help, and got it here. Making the letters in “Walz” just a tad taller makes the whole mark feel significantly more cohesive.

 ★ 

Jonathan Hoefler, on Threads:

The Harris/Walz logo got a smart and subtle haircut this weekend,
which, like the very best typography, is making everything better
while drawing very little attention to itself.

I read a lot of comments about political logos… Having helped
shape the logo of every Democratic president in the twenty-first
century (hflr.io/biden, hflr.io/obama), let me say from
experience that campaign typography is completely unlike graphic
design: it’s a strange and fascinating agility sport, marked by
limited information, a ticking clock, unimaginable pressures, and
serious consequences. It’s Iron Chef, but in Adobe Illustrator.

The “Harris” was fine all along, and only ever-so-slightly tweaked in this updated logo. It was the “Walz” that needed help, and got it here. Making the letters in “Walz” just a tad taller makes the whole mark feel significantly more cohesive.

Read More 

Emma Roth, writing for The Verge:

Google has finally taken the wraps off its Pixel 9 lineup, which
includes three slab phones and a folding phone. The regular lineup
consists of a base Pixel 9 with a 6.3-inch display, a Pixel 9 Pro
XL with a 6.8-inch screen, and a new, smaller Pixel 9 Pro option
measuring 6.3 inches. The trio of devices comes with a redesigned
oval-shaped camera housing, Google’s updated G4 Tensor chip,
better battery life, and a new satellite SOS feature.

While the Pixel 9’s $799 starting price is $100 more than last
year’s model, the Pixel 9 Pro starts at $999, and the Pro XL will
cost $1,099 and up. The Pixel 9 and 9 Pro XL start shipping on
August 22nd, with availability for the smaller Pixel 9 Pro
starting in September.

Almost certainly the best Android phones on the market, all things considered, yet it seems pretty predictable that, just like with all previous generations of Pixel phones, few people will buy them. IDC claims Pixels have 5 percent market share in the U.S. but it sure doesn’t seem to me like one out of every 20 phones I see is a Pixel.

In addition to three new standard Pixel devices, Google showed off
the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. The refreshed Fold is taller and thinner
than its predecessor, offering larger displays measuring 6.3
inches on the outside and eight inches on the inside.

The Pixel Pro Fold costs $1,800. I’ve seen a handful of folding phones in real-world use over the years, but only a handful. These things get a ton of attention in the tech media but seemingly nearly zero traction in the market. I continue think this will remain true until and if Apple releases one, which I expect will look nothing like the existing ones, and then the Android handset makers will makes ones that look like Apple’s, and the Android zealots will attempt to shoot down accusations of copycatting by arguing that the design is obvious.

Google’s Made By event was held live, including the AI demos, which didn’t go well. But I have no snark for that. I like live demos and miss them at Apple events. And part of what I like is the high-wire drama of potential demo failure. Watching a live demo gets your attention in a way that a pre-recorded demo cannot. It’s like watching a live stunt.

See also: Marques Brownlee’s first impressions of the new phones (and the new Pixel Watches and wireless earbuds).

 ★ 

Emma Roth, writing for The Verge:

Google has finally taken the wraps off its Pixel 9 lineup, which
includes three slab phones and a folding phone. The regular lineup
consists of a base Pixel 9 with a 6.3-inch display, a Pixel 9 Pro
XL with a 6.8-inch screen, and a new, smaller Pixel 9 Pro option
measuring 6.3 inches. The trio of devices comes with a redesigned
oval-shaped camera housing, Google’s updated G4 Tensor chip,
better battery life, and a new satellite SOS feature.

While the Pixel 9’s $799 starting price is $100 more than last
year’s model, the Pixel 9 Pro starts at $999, and the Pro XL will
cost $1,099 and up. The Pixel 9 and 9 Pro XL start shipping on
August 22nd, with availability for the smaller Pixel 9 Pro
starting in September.

Almost certainly the best Android phones on the market, all things considered, yet it seems pretty predictable that, just like with all previous generations of Pixel phones, few people will buy them. IDC claims Pixels have 5 percent market share in the U.S. but it sure doesn’t seem to me like one out of every 20 phones I see is a Pixel.

In addition to three new standard Pixel devices, Google showed off
the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. The refreshed Fold is taller and thinner
than its predecessor, offering larger displays measuring 6.3
inches on the outside and eight inches on the inside.

The Pixel Pro Fold costs $1,800. I’ve seen a handful of folding phones in real-world use over the years, but only a handful. These things get a ton of attention in the tech media but seemingly nearly zero traction in the market. I continue think this will remain true until and if Apple releases one, which I expect will look nothing like the existing ones, and then the Android handset makers will makes ones that look like Apple’s, and the Android zealots will attempt to shoot down accusations of copycatting by arguing that the design is obvious.

Google’s Made By event was held live, including the AI demos, which didn’t go well. But I have no snark for that. I like live demos and miss them at Apple events. And part of what I like is the high-wire drama of potential demo failure. Watching a live demo gets your attention in a way that a pre-recorded demo cannot. It’s like watching a live stunt.

See also: Marques Brownlee’s first impressions of the new phones (and the new Pixel Watches and wireless earbuds).

Read More 

USA Today columnist Rex Huppke, on Donald Trump’s high-profile return to Twitter/X:

But the online interview went off (the rails) with a
multitude of hitches. X users erupted with either frustration or
laughter as the planned start time passed, and nothing could be
accessed. It took more than 40 minutes before the
interview could start and be heard by anyone. It was amateur hour,
the last thing a campaign struggling to project competence needed.

Of course, things didn’t get better for Trump once the interview
was able to proceed. He was rambling, babbling on about crowd
sizes and immigration and President Joe Biden and whatever else
seemed to pass through his mind. He was also badly slurring his
words, raising questions about his health, and doing nothing to
knock down rising concerns about his age and well-being.

He sounded like a disoriented, racist Daffy Duck.

Here’s Donald Trump, back in May 2023, when Ron DeSantis launched his primary campaign the same way, in a Twitter Space interview with Musk:

Wow! The DeSanctus TWITTER launch is a DISASTER! His whole
campaign will be a disaster. WATCH!

 ★ 

USA Today columnist Rex Huppke, on Donald Trump’s high-profile return to Twitter/X:

But the online interview went off (the rails) with a
multitude of hitches. X users erupted with either frustration or
laughter as the planned start time passed, and nothing could be
accessed. It took more than 40 minutes before the
interview could start and be heard by anyone. It was amateur hour,
the last thing a campaign struggling to project competence needed.

Of course, things didn’t get better for Trump once the interview
was able to proceed. He was rambling, babbling on about crowd
sizes and immigration and President Joe Biden and whatever else
seemed to pass through his mind. He was also badly slurring his
words, raising questions about his health, and doing nothing to
knock down rising concerns about his age and well-being.

He sounded like a disoriented, racist Daffy Duck.

Here’s Donald Trump, back in May 2023, when Ron DeSantis launched his primary campaign the same way, in a Twitter Space interview with Musk:

Wow! The DeSanctus TWITTER launch is a DISASTER! His whole
campaign will be a disaster. WATCH!

Read More 

I neglected to call this paragraph out yesterday in my first link to this announcement from Patreon:

Patreon is home to an incredible range of creators, all with
unique circumstances and billing needs. Apple’s in-app purchase
system, on the other hand, only supports Patreon’s subscription
billing model. Apple has also made clear that if creators on
Patreon continue to use unsupported billing models or disable
transactions in the iOS app, we will be at risk of having the
entire app removed from their App Store.

Right now Patreon is offering its creators two options for dealing with the upcoming changes in its iOS app:

Raise prices for users who subscribe through the app by 30 percent to accommodate Apple’s cut of the transactions. (This is the default.)
Keep prices the same and pay Apple’s fees out of the creator’s share of the transaction.

What Patreon seems to be suggesting above is that if they offered a third option — not to allow subscriptions within the iOS app, controlled by each creator for their own subscriptions — that Apple has threatened to remove the Patreon app from the App Store.

I humbly suggest Patreon go ahead with that anyway. Let’s see how many of Patreon’s creators tell Apple to bugger off. And if Apple were to respond by removing Patreon from the App Store for offering this choice, how would that not backfire spectacularly in Apple’s face? I believe it would be a positive publicity bonanza for Patreon, and for high-visibility creators on their platform, as well. And this example would be a disaster for Apple publicity-wise and in the face of growing regulatory and antitrust scrutiny, especially right here in the U.S.

From the perspective of creators, this clearly ought to be an option. They don’t want to charge their fans 30 percent extra just to pad Apple’s bottom line. They don’t want to earn less money themselves. Thus, they might not want to participate in App Store in-app payments at all. How is that not a perfectly reasonable choice for Patreon to offer and for some of its creators to make? And then just put right there in the app that this creator’s subscriptions are only available on the web. Dare Apple to strike that down on the anti-steering grounds that are in the bullseye of regulators around the world.

Patreon, with an army of devoted creator fans on its side, should call Apple on this bluff. I don’t think they could lose.

 ★ 

I neglected to call this paragraph out yesterday in my first link to this announcement from Patreon:

Patreon is home to an incredible range of creators, all with
unique circumstances and billing needs. Apple’s in-app purchase
system, on the other hand, only supports Patreon’s subscription
billing model. Apple has also made clear that if creators on
Patreon continue to use unsupported billing models or disable
transactions in the iOS app, we will be at risk of having the
entire app removed from their App Store.

Right now Patreon is offering its creators two options for dealing with the upcoming changes in its iOS app:

Raise prices for users who subscribe through the app by 30 percent to accommodate Apple’s cut of the transactions. (This is the default.)
Keep prices the same and pay Apple’s fees out of the creator’s share of the transaction.

What Patreon seems to be suggesting above is that if they offered a third option — not to allow subscriptions within the iOS app, controlled by each creator for their own subscriptions — that Apple has threatened to remove the Patreon app from the App Store.

I humbly suggest Patreon go ahead with that anyway. Let’s see how many of Patreon’s creators tell Apple to bugger off. And if Apple were to respond by removing Patreon from the App Store for offering this choice, how would that not backfire spectacularly in Apple’s face? I believe it would be a positive publicity bonanza for Patreon, and for high-visibility creators on their platform, as well. And this example would be a disaster for Apple publicity-wise and in the face of growing regulatory and antitrust scrutiny, especially right here in the U.S.

From the perspective of creators, this clearly ought to be an option. They don’t want to charge their fans 30 percent extra just to pad Apple’s bottom line. They don’t want to earn less money themselves. Thus, they might not want to participate in App Store in-app payments at all. How is that not a perfectly reasonable choice for Patreon to offer and for some of its creators to make? And then just put right there in the app that this creator’s subscriptions are only available on the web. Dare Apple to strike that down on the anti-steering grounds that are in the bullseye of regulators around the world.

Patreon, with an army of devoted creator fans on its side, should call Apple on this bluff. I don’t think they could lose.

Read More 

Substack cofounder Hamish McKenzie, on Patreon being required by Apple to offer in-app subscriptions through their iOS app:

But we also don’t think that Apple should be wholly blamed. This
unfortunate situation, in which creators ultimately bear the
biggest costs, is a structural issue rooted in how the
commercial internet has evolved (or not) over the past couple of
decades. […]

But creators aren’t Apple’s traditional customers. They’re
not app makers or game developers. They don’t actually have a
piece of real estate in the App Store. They instead find their
distribution through media platforms, including the likes of
Patreon and Substack. It might feel weird for someone who
publishes a podcast through Patreon, or a publication through
Substack, to receive the same treatment from Apple as Netflix.

The emergence of the creator economy presents an interesting
challenge and opportunity for Apple, and some delicate questions
for Patreon and Substack. We want creators and subscribers to
benefit from the power of Apple’s in-app purchases. In fact, at
Substack we have been working with Apple to bring in-app purchases
into our app, because we believe that anything that reduces the
friction of a subscription is great for creators. We’re doing
everything in our power to make the implementation of in-app
purchases as creator-friendly as possible.

First, a correction: Yesterday I wrote that Substack didn’t offer in-app purchases in its iOS app. I was wrong. They do. How I got it wrong is that I checked, in the app, by looking at a publication to which I was already subscribed at the free tier, to upgrade to a paid account. That showed me a panel that read “You cannot manage your subscription in the app.” But that’s because I started the subscription on Substack’s website. For Substack subscriptions made on the web, you must continue to manage them on the web. This probably isn’t merely about avoiding Apple’s payment fees, but a practical requirement. I don’t think there’s any way, technically, that an individual subscription you started paying for on the web could be migrated on-the-fly to Apple’s payments, or vice-versa. For a Substack publication you aren’t already subscribed to, even at the free tier, you can subscribe via IAP in the Substack iOS app.

What I should have done is look at Substack’s listing on the App Store itself, which clearly shows that it offers in-app purchases. Each Substack publication offers a distinct SKU for each paid subscription it offers, so the Substack app’s listing shows the most popular ones.

Second: McKenzie’s observation that it’s weird for individual creators “to receive the same treatment from Apple as Netflix” is interesting, because Netflix doesn’t receive the same treatment as most apps. Netflix is a “reader app”, a special category Apple carved out in the App Store for “apps that provide one or more of the following digital content types — magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, or video — as the primary functionality of the app”.

It seems obvious to me that creator-platform apps like Substack and Patreon ought to be in a new category of their own, the basic idea of which would be for Apple to take some sort of smaller cut of these transactions.

 ★ 

Substack cofounder Hamish McKenzie, on Patreon being required by Apple to offer in-app subscriptions through their iOS app:

But we also don’t think that Apple should be wholly blamed. This
unfortunate situation, in which creators ultimately bear the
biggest costs, is a structural issue rooted in how the
commercial internet has evolved (or not) over the past couple of
decades. […]

But creators aren’t Apple’s traditional customers. They’re
not app makers or game developers. They don’t actually have a
piece of real estate in the App Store. They instead find their
distribution through media platforms, including the likes of
Patreon and Substack. It might feel weird for someone who
publishes a podcast through Patreon, or a publication through
Substack, to receive the same treatment from Apple as Netflix.

The emergence of the creator economy presents an interesting
challenge and opportunity for Apple, and some delicate questions
for Patreon and Substack. We want creators and subscribers to
benefit from the power of Apple’s in-app purchases. In fact, at
Substack we have been working with Apple to bring in-app purchases
into our app, because we believe that anything that reduces the
friction of a subscription is great for creators. We’re doing
everything in our power to make the implementation of in-app
purchases as creator-friendly as possible.

First, a correction: Yesterday I wrote that Substack didn’t offer in-app purchases in its iOS app. I was wrong. They do. How I got it wrong is that I checked, in the app, by looking at a publication to which I was already subscribed at the free tier, to upgrade to a paid account. That showed me a panel that read “You cannot manage your subscription in the app.” But that’s because I started the subscription on Substack’s website. For Substack subscriptions made on the web, you must continue to manage them on the web. This probably isn’t merely about avoiding Apple’s payment fees, but a practical requirement. I don’t think there’s any way, technically, that an individual subscription you started paying for on the web could be migrated on-the-fly to Apple’s payments, or vice-versa. For a Substack publication you aren’t already subscribed to, even at the free tier, you can subscribe via IAP in the Substack iOS app.

What I should have done is look at Substack’s listing on the App Store itself, which clearly shows that it offers in-app purchases. Each Substack publication offers a distinct SKU for each paid subscription it offers, so the Substack app’s listing shows the most popular ones.

Second: McKenzie’s observation that it’s weird for individual creators “to receive the same treatment from Apple as Netflix” is interesting, because Netflix doesn’t receive the same treatment as most apps. Netflix is a “reader app”, a special category Apple carved out in the App Store for “apps that provide one or more of the following digital content types — magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, or video — as the primary functionality of the app”.

It seems obvious to me that creator-platform apps like Substack and Patreon ought to be in a new category of their own, the basic idea of which would be for Apple to take some sort of smaller cut of these transactions.

Read More 

Nick Heer, writing at Pixel Envy:

The 30% fee is also notable. As far as I can tell, only a
handful of Patreon users would exceed the million-dollar
annual threshold for Apple’s Small Business Program. That
is, everyone who earns less than a million dollars per year
through iOS Patreon pledges should, in theory, fork over a 15%
commission rate to Apple. But it appears it is Patreon itself
which is subject to the 30% rate. Whether that decision was made
by Apple or Patreon, of if it is something which is a consequence
of how App Store billing works, is unclear to me. But one thing is
true regardless: Apple’s 30% commission is at least double
the rate charged by Patreon itself, and only the latter has any
material effect on the relationship between a creative
professional and their supporters.

The problem here reminds me of e-books. There’s really only room for one middleman in a relationship between a creator and their audience, and in this case that middleman has been Patreon. But now Apple is saying they’re required to be involved too. But the Patreon app doesn’t qualify for the Small Business Program, so in-app subscriptions through the Patreon app are split 70/30 with Apple for the first year. But the vast majority of Patreon creators would, if they were app developers, qualify for the Small Business Program and the in-app subscription split would be 85/15 instead. But nobody wants each and every Patreon creator to build their own apps. The whole point of Patreon is that it’s a centralized platform.

The whole notion of a platform like Patreon just doesn’t fit with the App Store’s model of taking a fee out of every single transaction for digital goods or services. It could, perhaps, if Apple were willing to only accept a commission from Patreon’s own share — a commission on a commission — but they’re not.

Lastly, I suppose it’s implicit here that a lot Patreon users go through the iOS app. But I can’t help but think they should do what Substack does and just not allow paid subscriptions through the app. I just double-checked this was still true, and it seems to be. Substack’s iOS app lets you subscribe only to free subscriptions in-app. If you tap “Manage Subscription” in the app, you’re presented with a sheet that says, unhelpfully, “You cannot manage your subscription in the app.” (It’s Apple’s odious anti-steering rules that disallow apps like Substack from explaining where you can manage your subscription, which, of course, is on the web.)

 ★ 

Nick Heer, writing at Pixel Envy:

The 30% fee is also notable. As far as I can tell, only a
handful of Patreon users would exceed the million-dollar
annual threshold for Apple’s Small Business Program. That
is, everyone who earns less than a million dollars per year
through iOS Patreon pledges should, in theory, fork over a 15%
commission rate to Apple. But it appears it is Patreon itself
which is subject to the 30% rate. Whether that decision was made
by Apple or Patreon, of if it is something which is a consequence
of how App Store billing works, is unclear to me. But one thing is
true regardless: Apple’s 30% commission is at least double
the rate charged by Patreon itself, and only the latter has any
material effect on the relationship between a creative
professional and their supporters.

The problem here reminds me of e-books. There’s really only room for one middleman in a relationship between a creator and their audience, and in this case that middleman has been Patreon. But now Apple is saying they’re required to be involved too. But the Patreon app doesn’t qualify for the Small Business Program, so in-app subscriptions through the Patreon app are split 70/30 with Apple for the first year. But the vast majority of Patreon creators would, if they were app developers, qualify for the Small Business Program and the in-app subscription split would be 85/15 instead. But nobody wants each and every Patreon creator to build their own apps. The whole point of Patreon is that it’s a centralized platform.

The whole notion of a platform like Patreon just doesn’t fit with the App Store’s model of taking a fee out of every single transaction for digital goods or services. It could, perhaps, if Apple were willing to only accept a commission from Patreon’s own share — a commission on a commission — but they’re not.

Lastly, I suppose it’s implicit here that a lot Patreon users go through the iOS app. But I can’t help but think they should do what Substack does and just not allow paid subscriptions through the app. I just double-checked this was still true, and it seems to be. Substack’s iOS app lets you subscribe only to free subscriptions in-app. If you tap “Manage Subscription” in the app, you’re presented with a sheet that says, unhelpfully, “You cannot manage your subscription in the app.” (It’s Apple’s odious anti-steering rules that disallow apps like Substack from explaining where you can manage your subscription, which, of course, is on the web.)

Read More