#Apple-iOS

[the-pen-pot]

IOS users and Patreon. Big old heads up.

"Apple is requiring that Patreon use their in-app purchasing system and remove all other billing systems from the Patreon iOS app by November 2024. This means that starting in November, new memberships purchased in the iOS app will be subject to Apple's 30% App Store fee.

First, we want to be clear about one thing: this will not impact your existing memberships at all. Apple's App Store fee only applies to new memberships purchased in the iOS app beginning in November 2024."

Apple users, if you make your pledges through your browser you can dodge this fee.

This is just apple doing its usual nickel and diming to take a slice of every pie.

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

i'm begging you guys to start pirating shit from streaming platforms. there are so many websites where you can stream that shit for free, here's a quick HOW TO:

1) Search for: watch TITLE OF WORK free online

2) Scroll to the bottom of results. Click any of the "Complaint" links

3) You will be taken to a long list of links that were removed for copyright infringement. Use the 'find' function to search for the name of the show/movie you were originally searching for. You will get something like this (specifics removed because if you love an illegal streaming site you don't post its url on social media)

4) each of these links is to a website where you can stream shit for free. go to the individual websites and search for your show/movie. you might have to copy-paste a few before you find exactly what you're looking, but the whole process only takes a minute. the speed/quality is usually the same as on netflix/whatever, and they even have subtitles! (make sure to use an adblocker though, these sites are funded by annoying popups)

In conclusion, if you do this often enough you will start recognizing the most dependable websites, and you can just bookmark those instead. (note: this is completely separate from torrenting, which is also a beautiful thing but requires different software and a vpn)

you can also download the media in question (look for a "download" button built into the video window, or use a browser extension such as Video DownloadHelper.)

[allidrawscomics]

Apple soon charging 30% on Patreon subscriptions through iOS

This is the email Patreon creators woke up to today. Patreon is asking us to either raise our prices on the iOS app so that Apple can slurp up 30% of the subscription price, or we can keep our prices as they are and have that 30% come out of our own earnings. Either way, this fee is hidden from potential subscribers so they don't know they're paying 30% to Apple when they could be avoiding that by subscribing on Patreon's website as opposed to the app.

I find this to be a disgusting cash grab on the part of Apple because if they felt like their fees were fair then they would simply tack it on themselves at the point of checkout, not baking it into the prices of creators who had no say in this to make it look like we were the ones asking for more. If you find yourself wondering "Why are Patreon creators all raising their prices?" this is why. Please avoid transactions through iOS apps.

[avnj0gia]

[puppyeared]

my stardew farmer ^_^ he doesnt have a green thumb for shit so he keeps animals and does mining

some tidbits i came up with while playing hehe

reclusive and doesnt really go out of his way to talk or visit people unless its an errand. but he also doesnt try to befriend others to get something out of it, so he has a very easygoing approach to making friends. on good terms with linus and sebastian since he runs into them most often.

if he respects or takes a liking to someone, he'll greet them with miss/mister (name). if you get close to him he starts using first name basis. if he doesn't like you, he'll refer to you by your title without using your name. only a few people have caught on to this.

the farm he inherited, Milky Way Farm, was the site of a meteorite crash and sometimes you can find shards of meteor debris littered around the farm (i picked the hilltop farm bc of this lol)

lost his sweater and pants a long ass time ago and doesnt have the time to look for them, so hes been working in his sleep clothes ever since

isnt actually grandpa's real heir to the farm... ;)

[thisischeri]

Screenshots of iOS 6 by Adam Leier @capyrancher, 2012

[fruitiermetrostation]

iPhone

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The antitrust case against Apple

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT (Mar 22) in TORONTO, then SUNDAY (Mar 24) with LAURA POITRAS in NYC, then Anaheim, and beyond!

The foundational tenet of "the Cult of Mac" is that buying products from a $3t company makes you a member of an oppressed ethnic minority and therefore every criticism of that corporation is an ethnic slur:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/12/youre-holding-it-wrong/#if-dishwashers-were-iphones

Call it "Apple exceptionalism" – the idea that Apple, alone among the Big Tech firms, is virtuous, and therefore its conduct should be interpreted through that lens of virtue. The wellspring of this virtue is conveniently nebulous, which allows for endless goal-post shifting by members of the Cult of Mac when Apple's sins are made manifest.

Take the claim that Apple is "privacy respecting," which is attributed to Apple's business model of financing its services though cash transactions, rather than by selling it customers to advertisers. This is the (widely misunderstood) crux of the "surveillance capitalism" hypothesis: that capitalism is just fine, but once surveillance is in the mix, capitalism fails.

Apple, then, is said to be a virtuous company because its behavior is disciplined by market forces, unlike its spying rivals, whose ability to "hack our dopamine loops" immobilizes the market's invisible hand with "behavior-shaping" shackles:

http://pluralistic.net/HowToDestroySurveillanceCapitalism

Apple makes a big deal out of its privacy-respecting ethos, and not without some justification. After all, Apple went to the mattresses to fight the FBI when they tried to force Apple to introduced defects into its encryption systems:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/fbi-could-have-gotten-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone-leadership-didnt-say

And Apple gave Ios users the power to opt out of Facebook spying with a single click; 96% of its customers took them up on this offer, costing Facebook $10b (one fifth of the pricetag of the metaverse boondoggle!) in a single year (you love to see it):

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/facebook-makes-the-case-for-activity-tracking-to-ios-14-users-in-new-pop-ups/

Bruce Schneier has a name for this practice: "feudal security." That's when you cede control over your device to a Big Tech warlord whose "walled garden" becomes a fortress that defends you against external threats:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/08/leona-helmsley-was-a-pioneer/#manorialism

The keyword here is external threats. When Apple itself threatens your privacy, the fortress becomes a prison. The fact that you can't install unapproved apps on your Ios device means that when Apple decides to harm you, you have nowhere to turn. The first Apple customers to discover this were in China. When the Chinese government ordered Apple to remove all working privacy tools from its App Store, the company obliged, rather than risk losing access to its ultra-cheap manufacturing base (Tim Cook's signal accomplishment, the one that vaulted him into the CEO's seat, was figuring out how to offshore Apple manufacturing to China) and hundreds of millions of middle-class consumers:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-vpn/apple-says-it-is-removing-vpn-services-from-china-app-store-idUSKBN1AE0BQ

Killing VPNs and other privacy tools was just for openers. After Apple caved to Beijing, the demands kept coming. Next, Apple willingly backdoored all its Chinese cloud services, so that the Chinese state could plunder its customers' data at will:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html

This was the completely foreseeable consequence of Apple's "curated computing" model: once the company arrogated to itself the power to decide which software you could run on your own computer, it was inevitable that powerful actors – like the Chinese Communist Party – would lean on Apple to exercise that power in service to its goals.

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese state's appetite for deputizing Apple to help with its spying and oppression was not sated by backdooring iCloud and kicking VPNs out of the App Store. As recently as 2022, Apple continued to neuter its tools at the behest of the Chinese state, breaking Airdrop to make it useless for organizing protests in China:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/11/foreseeable-consequences/#airdropped

But the threat of Apple turning on its customers isn't limited to China. While the company has been unwilling to spy on its users on behalf of the US government, it's proven more than willing to compromise its worldwide users' privacy to pad its own profits. Remember when Apple let its users opt out of Facebook surveillance with one click? At the very same time, Apple was spinning up its own commercial surveillance program, spying on Ios customers, gathering the very same data as Facebook, and for the very same purpose: to target ads. When it came to its own surveillance, Apple completely ignored its customers' explicit refusal to consent to spying, spied on them anyway, and lied about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

Here's the thing: even if you believe that Apple has a "corporate personality" that makes it want to do the right thing, that desire to be virtuous is dependent on the constraints Apple faces. The fact that Apple has complete legal and technical control over the hardware it sells – the power to decide who can make software that runs on that hardware, the power to decide who can fix that hardware, the power to decide who can sell parts for that hardware – represents an irresistible temptation to enshittify Apple products.

"Constraints" are the crux of the enshittification hypothesis. The contagion that spread enshittification to every corner of our technological world isn't a newfound sadism or indifference among tech bosses. Those bosses are the same people they've always been – the difference is that today, they are unconstrained.

Having bought, merged or formed a cartel with all their rivals, they don't fear competition (Apple buys 90+ companies per year, and Google pays it an annual $26.3b bribe for default search on its operating systems and programs).

Having captured their regulators, they don't fear fines or other penalties for cheating their customers, workers or suppliers (Apple led the coalition that defeated dozens of Right to Repair bills, year after year, in the late 2010s).

Having wrapped themselves in IP law, they don't fear rivals who make alternative clients, mods, privacy tools or other "adversarial interoperability" tools that disenshittify their products (Apple uses the DMCA, trademark, and other exotic rules to block third-party software, repair, and clients).

True virtue rests not merely in resisting temptation to be wicked, but in recognizing your own weakness and avoiding temptation. As I wrote when Apple embarked on its "curated computing" path, the company would eventually – inevitably – use its power to veto its customers' choices to harm those customers:

https://memex.craphound.com/2010/04/01/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-think-you-shouldnt-either/

Which is where we're at today. Apple – uniquely among electronics companies – shreds every device that is traded in by its customers, to block third parties from harvesting working components and using them for independent repair:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-macbooks

Apple engraves microscopic Apple logos on those parts and uses these as the basis for trademark complaints to US customs, to block the re-importation of parts that escape its shredders:

https://repair.eu/news/apple-uses-trademark-law-to-strengthen-its-monopoly-on-repair/

Apple entered into an illegal price-fixing conspiracy with Amazon to prevent used and refurbished devices from being sold in the "world's biggest marketplace":

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/10/you-had-one-job/#thats-just-the-as

Why is Apple so opposed to independent repair? Well, they say it's to keep users safe from unscrupulous or incompetent repair technicians (feudal security). But when Tim Cook speaks to his investors, he tells a different story, warning them that the company's profits are threatened by customers who choose to repair (rather than replace) their slippery, fragile glass $1,000 pocket computers (the fortress becomes a prison):

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/01/letter-from-tim-cook-to-apple-investors/

All this adds up to a growing mountain of immortal e-waste, festooned with miniature Apple logos, that our descendants will be dealing with for the next 1,000 years. In the face of this unspeakable crime, Apple engaged in a string of dishonest maneuvers, claiming that it would support independent repair. In 2022, Apple announced a home repair program that turned out to be a laughably absurd con:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/22/apples-cement-overshoes/

Then in 2023, Apple announced a fresh "pro-repair" initiative that, once again, actually blocked repair:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/#thought-differently

Let's pause here a moment and remember that Apple once stood for independent repair, and celebrated the independent repair technicians that kept its customers' beloved Macs running:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/29/norwegian-potato-flour-enchiladas/#r2r

Whatever virtue lurks in Apple's corporate personhood, it is no match for the temptation that comes from running a locked-down platform designed to capture IP rights so that it can prevent normal competitive activities, like fixing phones, processing payments, or offering apps.

When Apple rolled out the App Store, Steve Jobs promised that it would save journalism and other forms of "content creation" by finally giving users a way to pay rightsholders. A decade later, that promise has been shattered by the app tax – a 30% rake on every in-app transaction that can't be avoided because Apple will kick your app out of the App Store if you even mention that your customers can pay you via the web in order to avoid giving a third of their content dollars to a hardware manufacturer that contributed nothing to the production of that material:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-must-open-app-stores

Among the apps that Apple also refuses to allow on Ios is third-party browsers. Every Iphone browser is just a reskinned version of Apple's Safari, running on the same antiquated, insecure Webkit browser engine. The fact that Webkit is incomplete and outdated is a feature, not a bug, because it lets Apple block web apps – apps delivered via browsers, rather than app stores:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/13/kitbashed/#app-store-tax

Last month, the EU took aim at Apple's veto over its users' and software vendors' ability to transact with one another. The newly in-effect Digital Markets Act requires Apple to open up both third-party payment processing and third-party app stores. Apple's response to this is the very definition of malicious compliance, a snake's nest of junk-fees, onerous terms of service, and petty punitive measures that all add up to a great, big "Go fuck yourself":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/06/spoil-the-bunch/#dma

But Apple's bullying, privacy invasion, price-gouging and environmental crimes are global, and the EU isn't the only government seeking to end them. They're in the firing line in Japan:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Japan-to-crack-down-on-Apple-and-Google-app-store-monopolies

And in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-wins-appeal-in-apple-case

And now, famously, the US Department of Justice is coming for Apple, with a bold antitrust complaint that strikes at the heart of Apple exceptionalism, the idea that monopoly is safer for users than technological self-determination:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline

There's passages in the complaint that read like I wrote them:

Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security interests. Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple’s own financial interest—such as degrading the security of text messages, offering governments and certain companies the chance to access more private and secure versions of app stores, or accepting billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default search engine when more private options are available. In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and business interests.

After all, Apple punishes its customers for communicating with Android users by forcing them to do so without any encryption. When Beeper Mini rolled out an Imessage-compatible Android app that fixed this, giving Iphone owners the privacy Apple says they deserve but denies to them, Apple destroyed Beeper Mini:

https://blog.beeper.com/p/beeper-moving-forward

Tim Cook is on record about this: if you want to securely communicate with an Android user, you must "buy them an Iphone":

https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/7/23342243/tim-cook-apple-rcs-imessage-android-iphone-compatibility

If your friend, family member or customer declines to change mobile operating systems, Tim Cook insists that you must communicate without any privacy or security.

Even where Apple tries for security, it sometimes fails ("security is a process, not a product" -B. Schneier). To be secure in a benevolent dictatorship, it must also be an infallible dictatorship. Apple's far from infallible: Eight generations of Iphones have unpatchable hardware defects:

https://checkm8.info/

And Apple's latest custom chips have secret-leaking, unpatchable vulnerabilities:

https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/03/hackers-can-extract-secret-encryption-keys-from-apples-mac-chips/

Apple's far from infallible – but they're also far from benevolent. Despite Apple's claims, its hardware, operating system and apps are riddled with deliberate privacy defects, introduce to protect Apple's shareholders at the expense of its customers:

https://proton.me/blog/iphone-privacy

Now, antitrust suits are notoriously hard to make, especially after 40 years of bad-precedent-setting, monopoly-friendly antitrust malpractice. Much of the time, these suits fail because they can't prove that tech bosses intentionally built their monopolies. However, tech is a written culture, one that leaves abundant, indelible records of corporate deliberations. What's more, tech bosses are notoriously prone to bragging about their nefarious intentions, committing them to writing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/03/big-tech-cant-stop-telling-on-itself/

Apple is no exception – there's an abundance of written records that establish that Apple deliberately, illegally set out to create and maintain a monopoly:

https://www.wired.com/story/4-internal-apple-emails-helped-doj-build-antitrust-case/

Apple claims that its monopoly is beneficent, used to protect its users, making its products more "elegant" and safe. But when Apple's interests conflict with its customers' safety and privacy – and pocketbooks – Apple always puts itself first, just like every other corporation. In other words: Apple is unexceptional.

The Cult of Mac denies this. They say that no one wants to use a third-party app store, no one wants third-party payments, no one wants third-party repair. This is obviously wrong and trivially disproved: if no Apple customer wanted these things, Apple wouldn't have to go to enormous lengths to prevent them. The only phones that an independent Iphone repair shop fixes are Iphones: which means Iphone owners want independent repair.

The rejoinder from the Cult of Mac is that those Iphone owners shouldn't own Iphones: if they wanted to exercise property rights over their phones, they shouldn't have bought a phone from Apple. This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy for distraction-rectangles, and moreover, it's impossible to square with Tim Cook's insistence that if you want private communications, you must buy an Iphone.

Apple is unexceptional. It's just another Big Tech monopolist. Rounded corners don't preserve virtue any better than square ones. Any company that is freed from constraints – of competition, regulation and interoperability – will always enshittify. Apple – being unexceptional – is no exception.

Name your price for 18 of my DRM-free ebooks and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the Humble Cory Doctorow Bundle.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/22/reality-distortion-field/#three-trillion-here-three-trillion-there-pretty-soon-youre-talking-real-money

[okaydays22]

[shiftythrifting]

apple pls

If you're enjoying tumblr thru the app on an apple device, you may not see ANY of the submissions coming in. If you're only seeing reblogs, our ads, and original posts, start using your browser for tumblr.

[getvalentined]

The Big Patreon Breakdown

Okay, Patreon's Discord Q&A ended on the 16th, and I've been waiting to see if anything else happened—like maybe a a public announcement from Patreon instead of emails sent exclusively to creators and a video hidden on the CEO's personal YT page—but nothing has happened, so I'm gonna do a breakdown of what we're looking at.

This is an EXTREMELY long post. I am not putting it behind a cut. I'm not sorry.

Short attention span version here.

—

I. The iOS processing fees are a smokescreen covering up the actual devastating changes that Patreon is forcing creators into.

The iOS fees are trash, 30 percent is extortion and we all know it—but that's not the biggest issue at hand here. Patreon is using this event as an excuse to change the entire structure of the creator side of their platform, and blaming Apple to avoid getting backlash.

They tripled their platform and processing fees in 2017, passing it on to patrons without notice, and the subsequent hemorrhage of paying users forced them to walk it back. They tried to force everyone onto their rolling billing model in 2021, and the entire community pushed back so hard they were forced again to walk it back.

This time, they're doing both and insisting it's Apple's fault, and everyone is taking that at face value because Apple sucks. And Apple does suck, but Patreon is getting what they've wanted for years by catering to Apple.

Oh, also, they're forcing creators to notify their patrons of the billing model changes (with a suggested template that explicitly refers to it as a decision made by the creator, even though nobody is making any decisions here except Jack Conte) rather than doing it themselves.

II. Patreon is not going to change course for any reason. This is set in stone.

There are multiple proofs for this, including but not limited to:

One-on-one calls between the platform's top earners and the CEO, Jack Conte, wherein the vibe was apparently not "What can we do to support your business in order to retain your place on our platform?" but rather "We know that the only way this works is if we don't do it, but how can we keep you from complaining about it any more than you already have?" One creator explained in granular detail how they run their business through this platform and why changing their billing model would ruin literally everything, and Conte responded with "Is this an essential part of your offering?"

The Patreon Team on Discord has continued to shut down all discussion of alternative options with assertions that Apple won't allow it, even if those alternatives were suggested based on legal precedent set by lawsuits against Apple, and the declaration that they will not be allowing the app to be removed from the App Store no matter what because it's the single most important and integral avenue of creator growth on the platform. (Put a pin in that.)

The platform's top earner is on the pay-per-creation billing model, the one that is going to be hit the hardest; creators on this model stand to lose literally 90 percent of their income overnight. This creator and his team were as blindsided as the rest of us, and they've been offered no assistance except for a complex math equation to try to calculate how much they should be charging people on fixed-price tiers, and no assurance except "the iOS app is the platform's highest source of engagement and is necessary to help you continue to grow."

Pay-upfront (PUF) and pay-per-creation (PPC) billing is going away for new accounts and anyone who doesn't opt out via Patreon's convoluted backend before November 1 of this year, and anyone who doesn't manually switch over to their rolling billing cycle will be automatically pushed into it on November 1, 2025. This means that PUF creators no longer have the promise of a steady paycheck when they need it, early enough in the month to pay rent and bills, while PPC creators are losing their entire business model all at once, which has resulted in a loss of 75 to 90 percent of income for multiple PPC creators who have tried to switch to the rolling billing structure in the past. They are killing these people's livelihoods and they know it, they have seen the data to prove it, but they will not be swayed.

III. Patreon claims the iOS app is the highest source of engagement on the platform at 40 percent—but will not define what "engagement" means, and staff refuse to share detailed analytics or data on the revenue share coming from the app.

Several creators, some with a couple dozen patrons and some with thousands, polled their audience to get a feel for how many of them used the app. Consistently across every creative industry, genre, and form of media, the answer was 2 percent or less. The average across a dozen-plus polls of actual active patrons, numbering into the thousands, is that around 85 percent of patrons access the platform exclusively via the web, whether on desktop or mobile. The majority didn't even know there was an app.

Further, Patreon would not explain what "engagement" means, but did not deny the possibility that dismissing an app notification on your phone counts as an "engagement."

When Patreon was asked for data on how often people pledged to support a creator via the iOS app, the only response was the claim that information is "sensitive to [Patreon's] business" and can't be shared. In a creator-exclusive server. With the people who bring that revenue onto the platform in the first place. And have our own analytics that we can look at individually, which show an average of 0 to 0.5 percent revenue from the iOS app.

IV. Patreon does not have a refund policy in place to work with Apple, and has given no implications of intention to work with Apple to shorten the time it takes for funds from iOS purchases to be paid out to creators, which is currently 75 days.

Yes, you read that correctly: at the moment, it takes 75 days before creators can cash out funds processed via iOS. On top of that, Apple's refund policy is 60 days, and the creator is not involved in the process whatsoever—if a malicious actor pledges to your page, downloads all your work over the course of a month, and then pings Apple for a refund? Apple gets to decide whether or not they get that refund.

Patreon's general refund policy is that it's up to the creator 99.9 percent of the time, with very rare cases of fraud requiring Patreon's intervention. In the case of pledges and Commerce sales via iOS, the creator has no say, and Patreon currently has no policy to protect them. They've stated that they're working on a refund policy that will work with Apple's guidelines to keep everyone happy, but at this point we all know what that means—they're just going to use Apple's refund policy.

They also wouldn't say whether or not creators would be on the hook for Apple's added processing fees, as is usually the case with other big payment processors, but it sounds like we are! So if someone pays $14.50 on the iOS app, the creator gets $10, can't pay it out, and then the malicious actor can call for a refund weeks later and the creator will owe $14.50—in spite of only ever having seen $10 and never being able to pay it out because the 75 hold hadn't passed. Sounds great!

V. Patreon's own graphics meant to explain why this is necessary and how the new fees work are not correct.

I'm gonna let these mostly speak for themselves:

The sale price listed on this graphic is $10, but adding together the three fees listed gives a total of $11.35. This is likely a copying error, as 4.35 is clearly not 30% of 10, but the lack of attention to detail on one of the only two pieces of official material that we have which refer directly to the numbers on which Patreon is signing away our livelihoods is slightly concerning.

This one totals up to 103 percent! (Actually closer to 104, since I rounded Android and Mobile down by about a quarter percent each.) The 40 percent figure on the iOS bar is based on the figure given to us by Patreon staff, and was used to place the markers to denote individual percentages on the other three.

Patreon made these and gave them to us with the assertion that they were proof that the iOS app is indispensable—why should we trust anything they say about numbers if the charts they gave us are literally impossible?

VI. Patreon refuses to offer any promises to 18+ creators that they will not be removed from the app in order to adhere to Apple's content guidelines.

Instead, Patreon staff's response to this request for reassurance is "We have no plans to remove 18+ creators from the Patreon app." You may note that's phrased very specifically, and leaves a hole big enough to drive a freight train full of iPhones straight through. They have no plans to remove 18+ creators from the app. When asked for clarification on this, confirmation that they would not be removing us from the platform if Apple pushed them to do so regardless of whether or not they have plans, this sentiment was simply repeated in more words and with more apologies, along with a reminder that Patreon has had to change their terms for 18+ creators several times already in order to keep up with laws and competition.

VII. All the features Patreon is insisting are integral for creator growth are inaccessible to 18+ creators, and questions about this were either dismissed, redirected, or ignored.

Remember how the iOS app is the single most important and integral avenue for character growth on the platform? Well, 18+ creators are not discoverable on the platform, regardless of the avenue of access. We are not visible on the app unless you have it installed, are logged in, are already following us on the platform, and click an external link to be directed to our pages from somewhere else via a mobile web browser. There is no way to find us on the platform itself.

Other features that staff insist are necessary for growth to which 18+ creators do not have access:

Patreon creator search (on web, Android and iOS apps)

Mass post editing (now called the "Library," which reads as "Something Went Wrong" for me and other 18+ creators who tried to get to it)

On-platform video hosting

Built-in cross-creator recommendations

All on-platform "commerce" features (both digital and physical goods)

The ability to market ourselves by linking to Patreon from our social media and vice-versa (we're basically not allowed to do this or risk being banned)

Yeah, about that first and that last point. We're hidden from searches on the platform, and we can't link to our pages from social media or risk permanent suspension. We cannot grow in this fashion at all, and in fact 18+ creators are getting all the downsides of this switch (except maybe for the app fee, since you can't fucking find us to pledge on the app) with none of the benefits. Nothing they are doing here will help us grow, because they've kneecapped us already. Now they're going after our capacity to obtain a steady paycheck at the beginning of the month, too.

VIII. Patreon's iOS app is currently (as of August 18, 2024) in violation of Apple's guidelines for app ratings; staff did not state any intention to become compliant by raising the app's rating as needed to maintain their 18+ creator community.

The App Store guidelines on creator apps state that they must be rated equal to the highest rated creator content on their platform. In spite of hosting 18+ content, which requires a 17+ rating per Apple, Patreon is rated 12+ in the App Store. Increasing the rating to 17+ would cut out the entire market of wealthy teenagers with iPhones, and since everything else being done here is intended to please Apple, it's unlikely this will be the point that Patreon finally gives an inch for its creators. The exact response from staff on this was "We hear and acknowledge your inputs on the app rating and are exploring our options there." Their "options" on this are to increase the rating, or to remove all 18+ content from the platform. That's it. Those are their options. Why do those need exploring, if they really give a shit about the 18+ community?

I know a lot of people out there are going to say that it would be nice if Patreon would "get rid of the porn," but you need to understand something: 18+ content is not all sexual.

18+ content can and does also include:

Horror (particularly body horror, which is explicitly or implicitly banned on all current adult-specific creator platforms, leaving me nowhere to go when Patreon kicks me)

True crime (murder, violence, theft, etc., is all 18+)

Health (blood/discussion of blood is 18+ regardless of context)

Education (what if you learn about war? that's 18+)

Trauma recovery (the word "r#pe" makes everything around it 18+)

Profanity (ko-fi marks creators 18+ for saying "fuck")

Languages (because you might learn profanity)

Weaponsmithing (because weapons are dangerous)

Leatherworking (because leather can be a fetish)

Shoemaking (feet can also be a fetish)

...even more I'm not bothering to list here.

Implying that they somehow didn't know about this extremely important part of the guidelines—which are being used as an excuse to force the top earner on the platform to ruin his entire business model—is absolute nonsense. Patreon knows about this requirement, they haven't taken any steps to comply based on their current creator population, and I will be shocked if they do. Much easier to just kick us all off, since we can barely use the damn platform as it is.

—

The entire thing makes no sense. Patreon is losing out on so much money by doing this—they're crippling all their highest-earning creators to keep the iOS app running, and it's going to hurt everyone except for Apple. The only reason I can think that they would refuse to budge on this is that there's something else going on behind the scenes between Patreon and Apple. That, or the company is intentionally throwing itself into an extremely drawn out death spiral. But we all know which of those is the more likely scenario here.

[retrogamingblog2]

[fruitiermetrostation]

Send This To Your Parents To Explain iOS 7

[lovjbini]

✩ CARRD INSPO by LOVJBINI // © hyunico

like or reblog if you useㅤෆㅤ2024.

✎﹏ please, put “ © hyunico – tutorial by @lovjbini ” in the description if you use our tutorial!

CLICK HERE FOR TUTORIAL

[disabletblrlivereminder]

Reminder To Turn Off Tumblr Live

i understand that snoozing this shit feature does nothing for mobile users now and i know that the limit changed to 30 days. after this post i'm queuing these for the 1st every month at 10am est and will also add instructions and the links that's in the pin post.

[orb-the-watchman]

Me using forbidden magic to connect a keyboard w/ pause break to my iPad so I can access debug mode and terrorize Snaxburg with 15 Mama Mewons on the go