Tim Sweeney: " Now Apple is demanding a 30% cut of all Patreon DONATIONS(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Tim Sweeney: " Now Apple is demanding a 30% cut of all Patreon DONATIONS
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1823027135784558842
129 comments
You're completely correct. It's a voluntary tip, but it still counts toward a person's income. It's totally different than donating to a 501(c)(3) charity.
Damn. 30% to apple, 30% to patreon, 30% to government that leaves you with 0.7^3 = 0.343 = 34.3%.
Damn. 30% to apple, 30% to patreon, 30% to government that leaves you with 0.7^3 = 0.343 = 34.3%.
I mean pretty much every part of this is incorrect.
Lets say they are single in the USA and made $150k on Patreon:
(12% * 47150)+(22% * (100525-47151)) + (24% * (150000-100526)) = $29,3000 -> 20%
<https://support.patreon.com/hc/article_attachments/288492020...>
WEB
* $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.89 to creator, $1.72 to gov't [FED]
* $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.02 to creator, $2.58 to gov't [FED+10% State]
IAP + default price bump
* $14.50 sale -> $1.15 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $7.19 to creator, $1.80 to gov't [FED]
* $14.50 sale -> $1.16 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $6.29 to creator, $2.70 to gov't [FED+10% State]
Users who care about the cost increase will go to the website. The others will pay in app and be stoked that they can just go to one place to cancel any iOS subscription. If they use their Apple Card, they can literally click any transaction in the Wallet app to see exactly what sub they were charged for.
I mean pretty much every part of this is incorrect.
Lets say they are single in the USA and made $150k on Patreon:
(12% * 47150)+(22% * (100525-47151)) + (24% * (150000-100526)) = $29,3000 -> 20%
<https://support.patreon.com/hc/article_attachments/288492020...>
WEB
* $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.89 to creator, $1.72 to gov't [FED]
* $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.02 to creator, $2.58 to gov't [FED+10% State]
IAP + default price bump
* $14.50 sale -> $1.15 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $7.19 to creator, $1.80 to gov't [FED]
* $14.50 sale -> $1.16 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $6.29 to creator, $2.70 to gov't [FED+10% State]
Users who care about the cost increase will go to the website. The others will pay in app and be stoked that they can just go to one place to cancel any iOS subscription. If they use their Apple Card, they can literally click any transaction in the Wallet app to see exactly what sub they were charged for.
> stoked that they can just go to one place to cancel any iOS subscription
So much of these anti-console anti-appliance threads boil down to:
Value-adding experiences consumers want enough to pay for (such as peace of mind that anything bought here can be cancelled no questions asked) should be prohibited, because I don't want to offer that experience.
So much of these anti-console anti-appliance threads boil down to:
Value-adding experiences consumers want enough to pay for (such as peace of mind that anything bought here can be cancelled no questions asked) should be prohibited, because I don't want to offer that experience.
If consumers really want to pay that much more for that convenience, why won't Apple allow the merchant to say that the price is lower elsewhere?
Apple is allowed to offer that feature, Apple isn't allowed to force you to buy that feature (depending on jurisdiction).
That is for the landlord
If you pay after you receive and consume the product in full, I'd call it a donation (unless the creator plans to send your debt to collections.)
[deleted]
I dont think it is purchase because there is no guarantee/promise that you will receive anything (usually)
Isn't patreon basically always "pay in order to access (current and future) paywalled content"? And while there may not be (or may be) a promise of future content, there is current content.
If I give money to the apache foundation am I "buying" software or donating? Some of the artists I support post everything they make outside the paywall and just use patreon as a convenient tip jar.
That's how we do things with sqlitebrowser.org as well. The Patreon donations are helpful contribution from our users, paying for things like domain names, certificate renewals, new hardware (eg for development), and so on.
We don't gate anything behind the payments, and it's extremely unlikely we'd ever even consider doing so.
We don't gate anything behind the payments, and it's extremely unlikely we'd ever even consider doing so.
I'm under the impression that "post everything they make outside the paywall [simultaneously or prior to posting it inside the paywall]" is not the norm. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule of course, but are they actually common?
A quick search doesn't suggest that the apache foundation uses patreon...
A quick search doesn't suggest that the apache foundation uses patreon...
In reality it does often offer perks (seeing creative work before release, exclusive behind the scenes stuff, etc.) so I think you can see that as a purchase, no?
Belonging to a church often has perks, yet we don't consider offerings purchases. I do think some Patreons are setup closer to a shops, but not all.
We probably should tax churches, since many churches require tithing and offer a pretty outstanding benefit for membership. It's hardly a donation when you're donating to an establishment central to your everyday life.
It's basically a social club that gets a pass on taxes because they believe in magic.
It's basically a social club that gets a pass on taxes because they believe in magic.
IDK
> If you derive satisfaction
Semantically, would The Church also qualify, (if it weren't already legally exempted)? You take yourself to the church, talk to the church people, they tell you things, you think and behave in Their mental framework, you feel better in your life, deriving satisfaction.
> If you derive satisfaction
Semantically, would The Church also qualify, (if it weren't already legally exempted)? You take yourself to the church, talk to the church people, they tell you things, you think and behave in Their mental framework, you feel better in your life, deriving satisfaction.
Oftentimes a 501(c)3's receipt will include a "fair market" value of whatever benefit the donor got. When religion gets reclassified as 501(c)3, I wonder how they will do receipts.
Officient salaries / (number of services * average participation) = FMVChurches are already 501(c)(3)s
This is an nuanced topic that might not be worth going into. The IRS automatically considers a church as tax exempt under 501(c)3. However, churches do not have to apply for that status (although some/many do), and do not have to follow IRS annual filing rules.[0]
0. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...
0. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...
> is supporting an author on Patreon ever a "DONATION"?
It depends. Is the author giving away content for free or is it paywalled? There are both types of authors using patreon.
> then it is a purchase regardless of what someone calls it.
I'm comfortable saying that the authors who give it away for free and ask for donations are, in fact, receiving donations.
It depends. Is the author giving away content for free or is it paywalled? There are both types of authors using patreon.
> then it is a purchase regardless of what someone calls it.
I'm comfortable saying that the authors who give it away for free and ask for donations are, in fact, receiving donations.
when you donate, you are not the one who personally receives the benefit, right? if you donate a car, you are not also using that car every once in a while.
to me that is the main distinction, who is benefiting from making that monetary contribution
otherwise, it is just an issue of timing, did I pay up front or later after a tried and liked the product
to me that is the main distinction, who is benefiting from making that monetary contribution
otherwise, it is just an issue of timing, did I pay up front or later after a tried and liked the product
> when you donate, you are not the one who personally receives the benefit, right? if you donate a car, you are not also using that car every once in a while.
If you donate to a church, you often also enjoy the perks that that church offers, paid for by donations.
If you donate to a public radio station, you probably also enjoy listening to that radio station.
If you donate to a church, you often also enjoy the perks that that church offers, paid for by donations.
If you donate to a public radio station, you probably also enjoy listening to that radio station.
I absolutely personally benefit when I donate to a web comic artist and they are able to continue making comics that I enjoy reading via my RSS feed. I don't consider this a purchase.
Using the word "product" is begging the question. You could just as easily say:
"If you derive satisfaction from an series of artistic works, and you know the person who creates those artistic works, and you decide to send money to support that person..."
-----
edit: and this is closer to the reality, because plenty of people subscribe to someone's patreon (or donate to them in other ways) for "products" that they have already consumed, or because they want other people to consume those products.
For an example of the latter: when financing journalists with mostly or completely open newsletters on substack. People generally aren't paying journalists because they want to read exciting stories. They're paying journalists because they want certain stories and types of stories to be investigated and written. They're not people who are paying to consume.
"If you derive satisfaction from an series of artistic works, and you know the person who creates those artistic works, and you decide to send money to support that person..."
-----
edit: and this is closer to the reality, because plenty of people subscribe to someone's patreon (or donate to them in other ways) for "products" that they have already consumed, or because they want other people to consume those products.
For an example of the latter: when financing journalists with mostly or completely open newsletters on substack. People generally aren't paying journalists because they want to read exciting stories. They're paying journalists because they want certain stories and types of stories to be investigated and written. They're not people who are paying to consume.
The semantics of the word "DONATION" are frankly irrelevant to the discussion.
Conceptually, why should a "donation" be any different than a "payment" in regards to the Apple tax? Regardless of their current legal agreement attempts to disambiguate these, they are conceptually quite the same. In one case you receive a good, in another you receive good-will.
Should Apple be entitled to 30% of these voluntary payments? Some of you will say "yes", but I'd bet pretty strongly the vast majority of the public would say "no".
And legislation will follow eventually, in my opinion, despite the US government/courts moving very slowly here.
Continued acts like these will only move up the timeline and increase the number of lawsuits which will eventually tip against Apple.
Conceptually, why should a "donation" be any different than a "payment" in regards to the Apple tax? Regardless of their current legal agreement attempts to disambiguate these, they are conceptually quite the same. In one case you receive a good, in another you receive good-will.
Should Apple be entitled to 30% of these voluntary payments? Some of you will say "yes", but I'd bet pretty strongly the vast majority of the public would say "no".
And legislation will follow eventually, in my opinion, despite the US government/courts moving very slowly here.
Continued acts like these will only move up the timeline and increase the number of lawsuits which will eventually tip against Apple.
> The semantics of the word "DONATION" are frankly irrelevant to the discussion.
I don't think the word DONATION is irrelevant at all.
Tim Sweeney is using the word "DONATION" deliberately to make Apple look like someone that steals even the "donations".
You know like someone stealing from the church lockbox.
I am not supporting Apple here at all, I am just pointing out the attempt to manipulate public opinion.
I don't think the word DONATION is irrelevant at all.
Tim Sweeney is using the word "DONATION" deliberately to make Apple look like someone that steals even the "donations".
You know like someone stealing from the church lockbox.
I am not supporting Apple here at all, I am just pointing out the attempt to manipulate public opinion.
Taxing individual artists is far worse than stealing from the church lockbox imo.
Like people sometimes ask "if money is the root of all evil, why does the church want it so much?". :)
>Should Apple be entitled to 30% of these voluntary payments?
Apple believes so, because Apple is so arrogant as to think that the payment wouldn't have occurred had it not been for their hard work on the platform.
It's false, of course. It'd be like Bell Telephone asking for a cut of your profits because you negotiated a business deal over the phone. Or the cell phone carriers forcing you to pay them $7 for a 20-second ringtone.
We traded one villain for another.
Apple believes so, because Apple is so arrogant as to think that the payment wouldn't have occurred had it not been for their hard work on the platform.
It's false, of course. It'd be like Bell Telephone asking for a cut of your profits because you negotiated a business deal over the phone. Or the cell phone carriers forcing you to pay them $7 for a 20-second ringtone.
We traded one villain for another.
At best Apple is entitled to 30% of whatever Patreon makes on that Donation, not 30% of the donation itself that's ridiculous.
This makes sense because it's arguably the same as any other payment system.
If you want to send $10 to someone using Venmo, it would be absurd for Apple to charge $3 of the $10 you are trying to send.
On the other hand, if Venmo charges a $1.50 fee for this service, it would make sense for Apple to charge 30% of that.
If you want to send $10 to someone using Venmo, it would be absurd for Apple to charge $3 of the $10 you are trying to send.
On the other hand, if Venmo charges a $1.50 fee for this service, it would make sense for Apple to charge 30% of that.
Why would Apple have to do consider what another company makes? What's that got to do with anything.
Not trolling - and I think Apple is greedy here. Still I need pointing out how your arguments is not logical.
This is like saying you can only sell your product for a % of someone else profit.
Apple should be allowed to charge whatever they want - as long as they don't have monopoly on the process. That is the crux of the problem here. Monopoly is the problem not the percentages.
Not trolling - and I think Apple is greedy here. Still I need pointing out how your arguments is not logical.
This is like saying you can only sell your product for a % of someone else profit.
Apple should be allowed to charge whatever they want - as long as they don't have monopoly on the process. That is the crux of the problem here. Monopoly is the problem not the percentages.
While Apple’s monopolistic practices should not be legal, it’s simultaneously true that Apple should not be able to inject itself into arrangements like this.
It should absolutely illegal for a company to tax your revenues like this.
It should absolutely illegal for a company to tax your revenues like this.
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, all parties involved voluntarily want to give Apple 30%. Why should that be illegal?
It seems it only becomes a problem when there is external pressure that where accepting the giving of giving 30% to Apple is seen as the best of a bad situation. But that's what anti-monopolistic efforts are supposed to avoid.
It seems it only becomes a problem when there is external pressure that where accepting the giving of giving 30% to Apple is seen as the best of a bad situation. But that's what anti-monopolistic efforts are supposed to avoid.
This argument is a poor foundation for legal reasoning. Suppose a guy wants to be a slave? Shouldn’t he have the right to be enslaved? Suppose a guy wants to sell his organs? Shouldn’t he have the right to sell his organs?
Well, no, society is much better off with these things blocked off. There are immensely perverse incentives created.
The main one here is just straight up collusion because there’s not many distributors by nature. It’s dumb as hell that steam takes as much as it does. It’s not helped by clauses about not charging less elsewhere even if the fees are lower which should also be illegal
Well, no, society is much better off with these things blocked off. There are immensely perverse incentives created.
The main one here is just straight up collusion because there’s not many distributors by nature. It’s dumb as hell that steam takes as much as it does. It’s not helped by clauses about not charging less elsewhere even if the fees are lower which should also be illegal
Some of the things you list are probably illegal because it is challenging to obtain informed consent. Especially where the repercussions are irreversible so it is more about avoiding exploitation rather than imposing a standard of what is acceptable behavior.
It is challenging to obtain informed consent when a company acting as the middleman between you and your customers changes their terms even if it is theoretically possible try and convince your customers to change middlemen.
> Suppose a guy wants to be a slave? Shouldn’t he have the right to be enslaved?
Sure. Why not? Typically society would only be concerned with the servitude becoming involuntary. Thus the right to be enslaved would be expected to also come the right to end enslavement at will. That said, in most jurisdictions marriage dissolution is happy to uphold involuntary servitude so we're not entirely consistent here.
> Suppose a guy wants to sell his organs?
Likewise, society might take issue with it because of its once and done nature. Decide that selling your organs was a bad idea and don't want to do it anymore? Too bad. You are already dead. However, relatedly, things like the sale of blood often is legally accepted as you can stop providing blood at any time if you find the association is no longer working for you.
Aside from the monopolistic considerations, the 30% offer to Apple would normally be acceptable to society because, like blood, one can stop offering it in the future should they no longer find it to be desirable. If it were a contract that states that you will pay 30% and on all future transactions for the rest of your life, even if you stop liking the idea, then society would undoubtedly take issue with it. But that in no way has any relationship to what is being talked about here.
Now, the monopolistic considerations are not typically accepted by society, but, indeed, we have gotten pretty lazy in doing anything about it.
Sure. Why not? Typically society would only be concerned with the servitude becoming involuntary. Thus the right to be enslaved would be expected to also come the right to end enslavement at will. That said, in most jurisdictions marriage dissolution is happy to uphold involuntary servitude so we're not entirely consistent here.
> Suppose a guy wants to sell his organs?
Likewise, society might take issue with it because of its once and done nature. Decide that selling your organs was a bad idea and don't want to do it anymore? Too bad. You are already dead. However, relatedly, things like the sale of blood often is legally accepted as you can stop providing blood at any time if you find the association is no longer working for you.
Aside from the monopolistic considerations, the 30% offer to Apple would normally be acceptable to society because, like blood, one can stop offering it in the future should they no longer find it to be desirable. If it were a contract that states that you will pay 30% and on all future transactions for the rest of your life, even if you stop liking the idea, then society would undoubtedly take issue with it. But that in no way has any relationship to what is being talked about here.
Now, the monopolistic considerations are not typically accepted by society, but, indeed, we have gotten pretty lazy in doing anything about it.
> Why not?
Minimum wage.
Minimum wage.
Like, the labour law? Volunteering to be a slave isn't labour. In fact, income is not even a concern of society. Look at income data sometime. A not insignificant portion of the population realize negative income. All perfectly legal.
It's not illegal. You can donate money to Apple whenever you want. The issue is not that you're giving money to Apple, it's that Apple can force itself as a middleman.
> it's that Apple can force itself as a middleman.
Sure, which it can do because of the monopolistic position it has entrenched itself with. If that were cleaned up, it would no longer be in a position to do that. But the other commenter doesn't agree with you. He says that is an entirely different problem.
Sure, which it can do because of the monopolistic position it has entrenched itself with. If that were cleaned up, it would no longer be in a position to do that. But the other commenter doesn't agree with you. He says that is an entirely different problem.
It's not a monopoly, though. Strictly speaking, there are markets where Apple is far from a monopoly, and yet this is still true there. The issue is that Apple is weaponizing laws and limiting consumer freedom. Apple is being anti-competitive and abusive, even when it doesn't have a monopoly.
Well, then, don’t pay it. Pay yourself for the service instead. Nothing stopping you from being the service provider if there is no monopoly.
Is suspect you will soon find a monopoly, though, and that you’re merely confusing some external interpretations with what is defined within the context of this particular.
Is suspect you will soon find a monopoly, though, and that you’re merely confusing some external interpretations with what is defined within the context of this particular.
I technically could. Nothing stops me from self-signing apps or using websites only. It's just massively inconvenient, due to anti-competitive behaviours. In the strictest sense of the term, even by a narrow construction it's not a monopoly. The problem is really anti-competitive and anti user practices that makes competitors unfairly disadvantaged
> Nothing stops me from self-signing apps or using websites only.
That is clearly not the same thing. Why don't you do the exact same thing? I mean, other than the monopolistic efforts holding you back.
(I recognize that you are trying to bring your own monopolistic definition to the table, and while I'm sure it has merit as a better definition, I fail to understand what value you think there is in trying to change the subject? Why not just stick to the topic in progress like everyone else, even if you don't love everything about it? The rest of us probably don't love it either, but that's not a good reason to toss the ball to the side in an effort to disrupt play because it isn't the brand of ball you have a preference for.)
That is clearly not the same thing. Why don't you do the exact same thing? I mean, other than the monopolistic efforts holding you back.
(I recognize that you are trying to bring your own monopolistic definition to the table, and while I'm sure it has merit as a better definition, I fail to understand what value you think there is in trying to change the subject? Why not just stick to the topic in progress like everyone else, even if you don't love everything about it? The rest of us probably don't love it either, but that's not a good reason to toss the ball to the side in an effort to disrupt play because it isn't the brand of ball you have a preference for.)
> I technically could. Nothing stops me from self-signing apps or using websites only. It's just massively inconvenient
literally all you have to do is `brew install altserver` and then be on wifi with your laptop once a week.
literally all you have to do is `brew install altserver` and then be on wifi with your laptop once a week.
It possibly could be, if they were organized as a non-profit that paid them a reasonable salary (which is probably an overambitious goal for most authors). After all, IKEA is a non-profit.
Comparing almost any corporate structure to IKEA is like comparing a children's alphabet book to the tower of babel. IKEA is a non profit owned by for profits partially owned by non-profits owned by dutch companies that license IP from Irish companies (who license it from IoS (IKEA of Sweden) in a small Swedish village called älmhult) owned by non-physical, non-personal entities that are "legal residents in Switzerland" that might or might not be controlled by certain people named Kamprad (in non-exclusive partnerships with other interested parties that might be controlled by companies owned by said dutch companies). And after that we have the whole ROIG, INKGA, etc. structures.
All I can think of when I read about things like this in the App Store is one of my first jobs: I was a busboy at a country club. Waiters would get tipped (usually pretty generously, as these were wealthy people who were repeat customers and developed relationships with the wait staff over many years), and they would usually in turn tip out the bussers pretty generously too.
Until one day, when tipping was "replaced" by a 15% "service fee" that was tacked onto the bill. This was sold to members as a convenience: rather than need to carry cash to tip the waiter, you can sign for it and take care of it with your monthly bill. This was misleading because the "service fee" did not go to the waiters (or the bussers), but instead was simply kept by the business office.
To make this all legal, we did all get a raise to the actual minimum wage (rather than the "tipped" minimum wage). This was still a big wage cut, and they lost most of their long-time staff, leading to huge churn. I left shortly after this happened for a better job, but the club closed down completely a couple years later (after 80+ years in operation). I suspect but can't prove that these things are related -- most likely they drank the waiters' milkshakes out of desperation, knowing they were eating their seed corn (to mix a metaphor).
Until one day, when tipping was "replaced" by a 15% "service fee" that was tacked onto the bill. This was sold to members as a convenience: rather than need to carry cash to tip the waiter, you can sign for it and take care of it with your monthly bill. This was misleading because the "service fee" did not go to the waiters (or the bussers), but instead was simply kept by the business office.
To make this all legal, we did all get a raise to the actual minimum wage (rather than the "tipped" minimum wage). This was still a big wage cut, and they lost most of their long-time staff, leading to huge churn. I left shortly after this happened for a better job, but the club closed down completely a couple years later (after 80+ years in operation). I suspect but can't prove that these things are related -- most likely they drank the waiters' milkshakes out of desperation, knowing they were eating their seed corn (to mix a metaphor).
[deleted]
I'm quite curious if there is some tenet of MBAology that essentially comes down to a more sophisticated version of 'ignore the side effects and likely future consequences of your actions.' It's so weird seeing so many companies just implode by carrying out actions that are negative to the point of verging on antagonistic towards their employees and customers.
I don't know, but it seems pretty easy to come up with a theory here - a large portion of executive compensation is from company stock, and short term actions that drive up the value of that stock will always be preferred, because as long as they aren't holding the proverbial hot potato when the thing collapses, they'll be fine - (and likely even if they are left holding it, they'll be fine - golden parachutes and all that).
So people making the decisions tend to incentivize the things that will maximize the return for their time.
So people making the decisions tend to incentivize the things that will maximize the return for their time.
I wonder if we can change the incentive to have their bonus in stock options that can only be accessed via a minimum 10 years to 15 years.
This is a pretty good explanation. I never thought about it like that. But the short term benefit of aggressive executive action is in tune with short term stock increase. It is not the market but the shareholder that decides. And short term the shareholder and the market are antagonists.
I don’t think a country club has publicly traded stock.
Yeah but that 15% food revenue growth might have gotten someone a bonus internally that year...
That’s not how small businesses work. If we’re going to speculate we can list many other scenarios; some which aren’t as accusatory towards the management.
In this case the "management" was theoretically answerable to the "customers" themselves, since it was a private club, but my understanding was that in practice the "board" basically just rubber-stamped whatever the management wanted (very similar to how "shareholders" in big public companies are treated).
There were other reasons to think that the club was in trouble (elderly membership literally dying off, dilapidated facilities, laying off beloved long-time staff, rust-belt economy not minting a ton of new rich people) so my best guess is that it was as simple as that: they needed short-term cashflow to stay in business, so they took it from the waiters and bussers. Either this wasn't enough and they had to close up anyway, or it actually brought the ultimate failure point forward.
There were other reasons to think that the club was in trouble (elderly membership literally dying off, dilapidated facilities, laying off beloved long-time staff, rust-belt economy not minting a ton of new rich people) so my best guess is that it was as simple as that: they needed short-term cashflow to stay in business, so they took it from the waiters and bussers. Either this wasn't enough and they had to close up anyway, or it actually brought the ultimate failure point forward.
Exactly.
Case in point: I worked on an investment team that had a product that at the time would close at $2b in assets. We were top 5% on 1/3yr performance, so we had incoming demand.
The dept head was paid on sales per calendar year, so he forced us to accept the last $300m of assets in December at 0.60% fee. Our average fee on the existing $1.7b? 1.25%. If we had waited for the other pipeline biz to close in Jan-March, it would have been at least 1% fee.
Many dumb buisness decisions are just logical decisions for a individual based on incentives that you can't see. They happen to be at odds with the goals of the firm as a whole.
They can't even seems to think a day ahead. Last Friday I got removed from the project I was consulting for, effective in three weeks. On today's daily, the PO who got my head asked me progress about my current ticket and told me "to do my best" during my remaining time on the project.
A second later he was the embodiment of the surprised pikachu face meme when I told him that it won't be happening. Of course he went crying to my boss an hour later.
Even in a country where you can get a sick leave for burn out for weeks, paid 100% of your salary, by speaking 5 minutes to a doctor, the management is treating employees like slaves. This is a really fascinating mindset.
A second later he was the embodiment of the surprised pikachu face meme when I told him that it won't be happening. Of course he went crying to my boss an hour later.
Even in a country where you can get a sick leave for burn out for weeks, paid 100% of your salary, by speaking 5 minutes to a doctor, the management is treating employees like slaves. This is a really fascinating mindset.
I think your story is missing a few key details?
You're still on the project for another 3 weeks, so they'll be paying you for that time. Why are you refusing to work on it? Are you going on PTO during that time?
You're still on the project for another 3 weeks, so they'll be paying you for that time. Why are you refusing to work on it? Are you going on PTO during that time?
My company and the client decided to remove me from the client's project in three weeks, and I have to work on the project until there, most of that time on support (which is a kind of punishment in itself).
Somehow they expected that knowing this I would finish my current ticket and just happily work on that pile of technical debt called a project with a smile. Instead a 5 minute call with a doctor got me a work break, which is compensated like work days (but doesn't consume vacation days, is effective immediately and can't be opposed to).
Why not working on that three more weeks? Because I hate that project that got me in a burn out state since a few months. Their decision was sudden and brutal, with no formal warning and no effort to try getting my point of view and improving things. Since management decided to play asshole game it's fair game.
Now you might ask what if I get fired? Well I could enjoy my 1 year half vacation with unemployment benefits north of 2K€/month working on interesting projects like research papers and my video game. Very scary indeed. I hope the boss can see the light of economic rationality again.
Somehow they expected that knowing this I would finish my current ticket and just happily work on that pile of technical debt called a project with a smile. Instead a 5 minute call with a doctor got me a work break, which is compensated like work days (but doesn't consume vacation days, is effective immediately and can't be opposed to).
Why not working on that three more weeks? Because I hate that project that got me in a burn out state since a few months. Their decision was sudden and brutal, with no formal warning and no effort to try getting my point of view and improving things. Since management decided to play asshole game it's fair game.
Now you might ask what if I get fired? Well I could enjoy my 1 year half vacation with unemployment benefits north of 2K€/month working on interesting projects like research papers and my video game. Very scary indeed. I hope the boss can see the light of economic rationality again.
My understanding of EU labor laws is limited, but generally even in the EU an employee refusing to work during the remainder of their term of employment can be used as grounds to deny both severance and unemployment benefits.
This might make a great story for fake internet points, but seriously, don't do this in real life.
Just do the bare minimum required.
This might make a great story for fake internet points, but seriously, don't do this in real life.
Just do the bare minimum required.
>Are you going on PTO
I think that was implied well enough by the last paragraph, or rather the PO has no recourse to the threat of taking PTO.
The comment is more about how managers don't think about the obvious consequences of their actions when it's their job to do so.
Aside from that, saying "do your best" right after you removed someone from a project is hilariously tone-deaf. So is the work valuable and I need to give it 110%, or is it not and I have 3 weeks notice?
I think that was implied well enough by the last paragraph, or rather the PO has no recourse to the threat of taking PTO.
The comment is more about how managers don't think about the obvious consequences of their actions when it's their job to do so.
Aside from that, saying "do your best" right after you removed someone from a project is hilariously tone-deaf. So is the work valuable and I need to give it 110%, or is it not and I have 3 weeks notice?
It's an incentive issue. As the average duration of employment at a single company for a manager has decreased, the time preference of a rational manager has changed to fit. The guy who made that decision will write on his resume that he increased profits by 10%, and the business went under after he left! He must have been vital!
You are right. This article explains it perfectly.
https://doctorow.medium.com/the-long-bloody-lineage-of-priva...
https://doctorow.medium.com/the-long-bloody-lineage-of-priva...
> a more sophisticated version of 'ignore the side effects and likely future consequences of your actions.'
That reminds me of an oft-cited study regarding parents being late to pick up their kids from daycare [0]. Once a monetary fine was imposed, late-pickups actually got worse, presumably because parents felt their lateness wasn't shameful anymore since they were justly paying for extra staff-time. That switch in customer viewpoints to proved difficult to undo.
While I do not think that case was an MBA-tier mistake, there's a similar theme: Something looks fine for sociopathic homo economicus but fails in the real-world of social relationships, implicit expectations, and long-term repercussions.
> actions that are negative to the point of verging on antagonistic towards their employees and customers
Besides raw greed, some of that may be from a quantitative/"McNamara" fallacy [1], where too much emphasis is put on easy numerical metrics when making decisions, and quarterly revenue is easier to have than measuring "customers resent us and our brand is recognizable but only in a bad way."
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/468061
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
That reminds me of an oft-cited study regarding parents being late to pick up their kids from daycare [0]. Once a monetary fine was imposed, late-pickups actually got worse, presumably because parents felt their lateness wasn't shameful anymore since they were justly paying for extra staff-time. That switch in customer viewpoints to proved difficult to undo.
While I do not think that case was an MBA-tier mistake, there's a similar theme: Something looks fine for sociopathic homo economicus but fails in the real-world of social relationships, implicit expectations, and long-term repercussions.
> actions that are negative to the point of verging on antagonistic towards their employees and customers
Besides raw greed, some of that may be from a quantitative/"McNamara" fallacy [1], where too much emphasis is put on easy numerical metrics when making decisions, and quarterly revenue is easier to have than measuring "customers resent us and our brand is recognizable but only in a bad way."
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/468061
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
Line must go up, and only as far as next quarter.
I've a parallel theory that there's a hidden wage decline in service jobs where the move to computerized and card-based payments severely reduced the opportunity for service workers to easily steal from their jobs.
I saw this firsthand with a pizza shop that went to computerized ordering from paper tickets. The drivers could no longer "lose" tickets and pocket the cash payment (resulting in a wage loss of ~$10/hour or more).
I've anecdotally heard similar from lots of folks that used to work fast food and service jobs.
I saw this firsthand with a pizza shop that went to computerized ordering from paper tickets. The drivers could no longer "lose" tickets and pocket the cash payment (resulting in a wage loss of ~$10/hour or more).
I've anecdotally heard similar from lots of folks that used to work fast food and service jobs.
The estimates we have suggests that wage theft by retail employers is greater than retail shrink, so your theory lacks data to back it up.
Setting aside how hard it is to get good estimates of these things, aren't those independent stats?
Finally, we curbed the ability of the most fucked subclass of workers to edge their way towards a livable wage by mildly abusing existing systems of trust. Instead, we can now reduce them to a number and use massive data analyses to squeeze the last penny from every gig worker (or of course just straight up steal, like in the OP).
And they say software isn't a force of good! /s
And they say software isn't a force of good! /s
I agree it’s a good thing. But we should also try to understand why those scum stole in the first place, so we can know how to prevent hiring them in the first place.
Calling them "scum" seems pretty harsh. By value, wage theft is the largest economic act of thievery in the economy - I wouldn't call it strictly ethical, but there's a balance to it.
This is the same as what restaurants do now. They started charging a "service fee" or surcharge. You might assume those extra fees are for the workers but it goes to the business.
And this is why I will never understand why many think tipping is a practice upheld for the benefit of the restaurant. Cash in your hand is always better than cash in someone else's hand.
It's for the benefit of the restaurant, because it given them the opportunity to disown the responsibility to their workers compensation.
While that might theoretically be a benefit, it is one not realized. I have never seen a restaurant not hire staff as employees, as opposed to leasing the space to independent contractors, which means that the restaurant is on the hook for their compensation.
Perhaps you are thinking of strip clubs?
Perhaps you are thinking of strip clubs?
The minimum wage is lower for workers who receive tips in most states. Restaurants can pay this lower "tipped minimum wage" and save money.
There is no realization of higher profit margins, though, which means that restaurants operating under that model also have to reduce their income in order to "save" on wages.
So, while a fun distraction, we're right back to you thinking that money in someone else's hand is better than money in your own. What is your rational? Conventional wisdom says that there is leverage in increased cashflow. Why is the conventional wisdom wrong?
So, while a fun distraction, we're right back to you thinking that money in someone else's hand is better than money in your own. What is your rational? Conventional wisdom says that there is leverage in increased cashflow. Why is the conventional wisdom wrong?
Yes, but there are a dozen other country clubs within driving distance, so this was ok for the customers, it's capitalism at work.
However with Apple (and Microsoft), we're all serfs on their feudal fiefs, so they can do this and get away with it.
However with Apple (and Microsoft), we're all serfs on their feudal fiefs, so they can do this and get away with it.
I find that Varoufakis idea of Technofeudalism is not exactly right, but it's right in the overall picture.
More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41224853
If it isn't going to a nonprofit it isn't a donation. Call it tip or "set your own price" or whatever else, but donation is not the word.
So if I give ten dollars to a guy begging for money that’s not a donation because he didn’t register as a non profit?
Donation usually implies that it's given to a cause or to a charity. That just isn't what Patreon is. It's people marketing and selling content on the internet.
But saying "donation" brings up feels for people. That's exactly why you see people in here adamant that they've been "donating" to their fave indie artists! It makes them feel philanthropic.
Those same feels are why Tim Sweeney used the word "donation". It makes you think a 30% cut is being taken from non-profit pediatric hospitals for the poor - Sheriff of Nottingham style. It's hyperbole.
Patreon doesn't say the word "donate" anywhere on their website. The closest they come is saying how to "pledge support" for your favorite creators by subscribing for a month and canceling.
But saying "donation" brings up feels for people. That's exactly why you see people in here adamant that they've been "donating" to their fave indie artists! It makes them feel philanthropic.
Those same feels are why Tim Sweeney used the word "donation". It makes you think a 30% cut is being taken from non-profit pediatric hospitals for the poor - Sheriff of Nottingham style. It's hyperbole.
Patreon doesn't say the word "donate" anywhere on their website. The closest they come is saying how to "pledge support" for your favorite creators by subscribing for a month and canceling.
Donating to small indie artists is philanthropic and should warrant “feels”.
Patreon does not use the word donate, but they do consider contributions to by “donations” even under recommended tax policy if the artist happens to be a non profit, not that we need to consider taxes to be relevant to feels.
https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/207099326-Is-m....
Patreon does not use the word donate, but they do consider contributions to by “donations” even under recommended tax policy if the artist happens to be a non profit, not that we need to consider taxes to be relevant to feels.
https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-us/articles/207099326-Is-m....
Yes. It's a gift, not a donation. You can't write off $10 to the homeless. In the giver's mind it's a donation but not technically afaik.
The concept of 'gift' is inherent in the meaning of donation and has been understood that way for centuries: https://www.etymonline.com/word/donate#etymonline_v_31787
Do you similarly hold that Nix v. Hedden decided whether we can refer to a tomatos as fruit or vegetable? Words can have different specific meaning in different specific contexts.
Even within the legal context of one country, you may for example be "a resident" by immigration law while "not a resident" by tax law, or vice-versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden
Even within the legal context of one country, you may for example be "a resident" by immigration law while "not a resident" by tax law, or vice-versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden
And why are you asserting the technical tax framework is relevant here?
[deleted]
It’s a gift in your scenario.
It is a gift under a technical tax framework. It is a donation under the normal human beings talking to each other framework.
In typical normal human speak, a gift and donation are effectively equivalent, but differ by the recipient. A donation is given to an organization, a gift is given to an individual.
If you give to a single individual on the street, it would typically be considered a gift. If you gave to a collective on the street, then it would typical be considered a donation.
Of course, humans are at their best when not normal. If you want to call giving to an individual a donation, go nuts. Hell, if you want to call it the moon, even better.
If you give to a single individual on the street, it would typically be considered a gift. If you gave to a collective on the street, then it would typical be considered a donation.
Of course, humans are at their best when not normal. If you want to call giving to an individual a donation, go nuts. Hell, if you want to call it the moon, even better.
Sampling 5 online dictionaries I am not seeing this nuance. Although sure, we can agree that a donation is a gift. In my opinion the actual nuance is that a donation is a gift driven by charitable intentions. A gift has broader connotations, like romance or celebration. A donation probably implies the gift is not driven by a personal connection to the receiver.
[deleted]
As someone out of the loop -- what changed that they weren't before?
I'm not interested in whether this is good or bad, I just want to know -- why now?
I thought all of these app store policies had been established for many years now.
I'm not interested in whether this is good or bad, I just want to know -- why now?
I thought all of these app store policies had been established for many years now.
There are policies and then there is enforcement.
They did change the terms of the app store a few months ago to say they are entitled to a cut. It was a big story.
And they did change their posture now in that they started demanding the payment.
What prompted the change on the term was a decision on one of those monopoly investigations. But I can't remember if it was the US or the EU one.
And they did change their posture now in that they started demanding the payment.
What prompted the change on the term was a decision on one of those monopoly investigations. But I can't remember if it was the US or the EU one.
As someone who saw the DoJ and some European regulation authorities in the 90s it is bonkers to see how Apple operates ruthlessly in their ecosystem and how the regulators are sleeping in the wheel about how harmful this company is to the creativity industry (e.g. indie games, creators, etc).
So why would anybody use patreon as app at all? Normal website still works, doesn't it?
Sort of a dupe.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41224853
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41224853
[dupe]
Discussion on official post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41224853
Discussion on official post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41224853
[deleted]
Break up Apple (and Google and Microsoft and Amazon). Heavily tax all trillion dollar corporations. Regulate their services as utilities.
so just use a browser rather than an app
All your base are belong to us - play the Apple game and pay the piper.
How dare they take creator income! That was Patreon’s job!
Patreon takes 8% fee + 2.5% currency conversion fee + 2.9%-5% and 0.1-0.3 USD transaction fee. That, and everything you create on any platform will need to live up to their requirements to not get kicked off.
Crooks, all of them.
Patreon takes 8% fee + 2.5% currency conversion fee + 2.9%-5% and 0.1-0.3 USD transaction fee. That, and everything you create on any platform will need to live up to their requirements to not get kicked off.
Crooks, all of them.
But clearly Patreon is the market maker here. Apple should only get 30% of Patreon's 8%.
I wouldn’t call Patreon a market maker - it’s closer to PayPal than being a content site. You don’t find creators on Patreon and interact with them there, you find them elsewhere and have them point you to Patreon for one-time or subscription payments.
The issue is not in how the fee is calculated, it is jusy that both Patreon and Apple have far too high fees. Having the EU shake this up at least the Apple side is great.
The issue is not in how the fee is calculated, it is jusy that both Patreon and Apple have far too high fees. Having the EU shake this up at least the Apple side is great.
Personally, I've never found Patreon's fees to be unreasonable. Would it be nice if it were less? Sure, but the platform needs to make money too.
If you have a 1 USD tier, the fees become 25.5%, 26.5% for non-US paypal. At 3 USD, it's 20%. At 10 USD, it's 17.5%. This is all before VAT and income tax.
How is that not unreasonable for such a simple service, especially as there are alternatives without such fees like Ko-Fi and LiberaPay?
How is that not unreasonable for such a simple service, especially as there are alternatives without such fees like Ko-Fi and LiberaPay?
Time for that breakup
The discussion on Apple's cut is important, but calling Patreon charges as "donations" is just disingenuous by Sweeney, as always.
Don’t forget that this is the same Epic Games guy who recently said that tracking thieves via Find My is creepy.[1]
Dude’s still sour that Apple didn’t let him get away with breaking App Store rules and that judges sided with Apple too.
Note that “donations” are taxable income, so Apple is not out of their element for doing this.
Dude’s still sour that Apple didn’t let him get away with breaking App Store rules and that judges sided with Apple too.
Note that “donations” are taxable income, so Apple is not out of their element for doing this.
[1]: https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1818258637413835199There's absolutely no context on the tweet which seems to be a continuation of a conversation non-logged in users can't access. It's impossible for anyone without a twitter account to understand what you're talking about.
> Don’t forget that this is the same Epic Games guy who recently said that tracking thieves via Find My is creepy
How... ridiculous? And totally relevant to the subject at hand?
How... ridiculous? And totally relevant to the subject at hand?
Keep in mind that Tim Sweeney doesn't care about the public; he cares about Tim Sweeney. At the end of the day, the purpose of this controversy is to get Epic Games the money that Apple is collecting instead. Customers won't win, and are merely pawns in this battle. So, anything he says should be treated with the skepticism it deserves. He's no hero, and shouldn't be treated as one.
If Sweeney wins here, consumers win. Creators keep more donations, and patrons increase their support for the same cost. I don't think you'll find anybody who says they'll side with Sweeney no matter what, so your point doesn't seem relevant.
No one cares about the public. Everyone is looking out for themselves. Life is about finding people whose interests align with your own.
There are a lot of people who care about the public, from social workers to teachers to city planners to the Dalai Lama. Let’s not be overly cynical here.
If you derive satisfaction from a product, expect someone to produce it, and support that process, then it is a purchase regardless of what someone calls it.