Apple's latest attack on creators hints at a fear its free-lunch era is coming to an end

Grassroots creatives breaking into the world of audience monetisation have had a rude introduction to Apple's treatment of content makers and owners.

by Rich Fairbairn

Published: 15:00, 15 August 2024

Last updated: 15:00, 15 August 2024

Despite retaking its status as the world's biggest company by valuation, Apple has managed to keep much of its sheen of being the friend of the creator and artist, and of being much cooler and less creepy than firms like Google and Facebook who inhabit the same financial stratosphere.

During the years when people boggled at what social and search firms were up to with user data and monopoly-like practices - and only now does that era seem to be coming to an end - Apple consistently and expensively promoted a nice-guy persona and privacy-first aura which encouraged you to look the other way from what it might be up to behind the scenes.

Yes, it had a few run-ins with rivals and regulators. But it would quite effectively spin the narrative in such cases that they were fuelled by opportunism from disgruntled corporate rivals looking to cut into Apple's deserved margin, or misguided meddling from EU chiefs whose efforts to promote competition risked making iPhones less secure. As blatant as the evidence often was, Apple somehow managed to retain some moral high ground.

But it is now having a harder time retaining its homespun hero image with the sort of grassroots creators the tech firm loved to associate its brand with, who have been swept up in what looks like a blatant run-for-revenue by Apple before it too comes under irresistible scrutiny by regulators and courts a la Google and TikTok.

The current stramash centres on Apple's demand to Patreon, one of the highest-profile outlets for smaller creators dipping their toes into content monetisation, for 30% of their member's fan fees. 

Here's how Patreon described it to their users. For audiences using Apple kit, soon if you are a new contributor to a creator an extra 30% slice of that payment will now sail to Apple, not the person you are supporting. 

I call it a slice, but when people first got excited about sliced bread it was because it was cut into lots more than just three 30%-sized blocks and a few leftovers. 

I'd call it an arm and leg, but according to Harvard even that only amounts to 22.45% of average human body weight. A full 30% is in fact two arms, one whole leg, and an additional shin and  foot!

That's not a slice, it's a savaging! Doing business with Apple is statistically comparable to being a full meal for a starving lion. For, as app developers and content businesses ask, doing what?

The Savaging isn't new to publishers with subscription apps, or in fact anyone else with an iOS app, and it is The Savaging which lays behind the sometimes absurd sign-up processes and payment dead-ends found in many publisher and media apps.

Ever wonder why you can't buy books in the Kindle App and have to go through the oddball process of buying them elsewhere and importing them? Now you know.

After years of legal dispute, only today has music giant Spotify worked out how to simply show its own prices inside its iOS app without being pulled from the App Store, and even that is only for EU-based users. 

Even when Apple says it complies with new EU rules, the alternative seems even more predatory than what existed before. And that doesn't get missed by those who levy fines.

The slipped mask shows fear?

Unfortunately, I cannot offer an immediate liferaft of hope to Patreon creatives facing a catastrophic change to their income potential.

And that fear is spreading, as shown by this post and lively debate by the founder and many high-profile members of Substack.

They will - like many publishers and media businesses before them - have to weigh up the allure of Apple's easy payment management with the prospect of refusing Apple-based fans (which is most of their current audience, say Patreon), ramping prices significantly for App Store users, or simply taking a kicking on their income. None of those 'options' are good

What I can suggest though is that this scenario might not last that long before it is reshaped by external forces.

Although this case is itself nothing new, except for Patreon who have somehow skirted this rule until now, it again highlights what looks like another very obvious cashgrab-before-regulation by a tech giant in a panic. And, as well as just not being cool, such actions have a habit of riling up regulators even more.

Just as Google's volte-face over its Privacy Sandbox may end up being seen as late-stage defiance to scoop up cash before regulators in the US and EU usher in reworked business models, it's now hard not to see Apple's moves here in the same light.

Hang on by your fingernails, if you still have them.