Apple to Soon Take Up to 30% Cut from All Patreon Creators in iOS App

Posted by pier25 2 hours ago

Counter133Comment89OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by m132 35 minutes ago

Patiently waiting for a mandatory 30% fee on every transaction made with iOS banking software. Maybe that'll put a definitive stop to forcing mobile "apps" with jailbreak detection on customers and have banks think twice before crippling the functionality of their websites.

Please Apple, make this happen.

Comment by Noaidi 13 minutes ago

A nickel for each iMessage…

Comment by tokioyoyo 8 minutes ago

Honestly… if we implemented $0.01 charge on every message, post and etc. the world would become an amazing place.

Comment by _alaya 2 minutes ago

I mean...that's how SMS used to work? Or still works?

Once upon a time it was expensive to send messages and now it's cheap.

Comment by metabagel 5 minutes ago

I think that spammers would happily pay that rate.

Comment by DANmode 34 minutes ago

Never.

Popular apps have been exempt from these rules since the beginning of time - not that I agree with this.

Comment by wmf 32 minutes ago

Is Patreon not popular?

Comment by DANmode 12 minutes ago

If their app didn’t exist on iOS,

would it be weird/embarrassing for Apple?

That’s what “popular” means, in this context.

That’s how they make their decisions.

Comment by speed_spread 20 minutes ago

As an app? No.

Comment by _alaya 1 minute ago

Apple has an impressive commitment to evil, similar to Oracle. They get better at it every year.

Comment by justapassenger 12 minutes ago

I miss the old school monopolies, where MS was a bad guy because they dared to include browser.

And yes, I do legalese details of that are much more complex. But it just makes no common sense.

Comment by brianwawok 8 minutes ago

Like try to break the internet and the java programming language? The former being most successful for years

Comment by hermanzegerman 1 minute ago

That's why the DSA is a good idea that should be replicated in the US. Too many parasites between creators and consumers

Comment by ethanrutherford 55 minutes ago

Always hated apple for their putrid business practices. Add this to the pile.

Comment by dankwizard 45 minutes ago

Just do what we all do to dodge this, have the Account management and purchasing abilities sit inside an embedded browser window that opens up from a button push in the app. Yes it adds a little barrier but with Apple Pay it is a very small barrier and the juice is worth the squeeze.

Comment by iknowstuff 39 minutes ago

Don’t they forbid this? Spotify couldn’t even link to their website in the US lol

Comment by kccqzy 35 minutes ago

In practice I’ve seen apps just game the system by (1) using IAP using the normal flow, and (2) giving user a button unrelated to purchasing that would open a new WebView, which just happens to contain a purchase button.

Comment by ezfe 8 minutes ago

Spotify does link to their website to sign up in the US...

Comment by colechristensen 36 minutes ago

This was a result of the Apple vs Epic case, external payment processors avoiding the fee were enabled in the US in May 2025.

Comment by kccqzy 33 minutes ago

If it was enabled, why can Apple still demand 30% cut here? Couldn’t Patreon just switch to external payment processors citing the Epic case?

Comment by ezfe 8 minutes ago

Because Patreon doesn't want to do that. They could.

Comment by AstroBen 20 minutes ago

They'd have to require all current subscriptions be cancelled and the re-upped with the new payment processor, no? That's gunna be really costly

But then again to avoid a 30% fee.. probably worth it

Comment by hiprob 1 hour ago

What are you going to do about it? Use Android?

Comment by shimman 9 minutes ago

Me? I'm working to help people get elected to Congress to help regulate this mess.

Comment by nout 4 minutes ago

Why would you want to give the government such power? That always amazes me... when there is an issue, people jump on "let's vote for government to regulate this", but then they are surprised when a new government gets to power and uses this new regulation/capability against you.

Comment by pixl97 8 minutes ago

At the end of the day Apple is doing their damnedest to force the requirement to support other app stores. They want their cake, and they want to eat it too. Unfortunately they are going to make an epic fuckton of money before they get told to stop.

Comment by tcoff91 34 minutes ago

launch an in-app browser and don't use apple as the payment processor.

The Epic v Apple lawsuit verdict makes this allowed now.

Comment by 1v1id 11 minutes ago

My understanding was that you could have a button that could take the user outside of the app to pay (i.e. your website). So progress, but not this level of freedom yet.

Comment by teejmya 13 minutes ago

Yeah, lol.

Was all Apple since the iBook G4. Bought a Pixel last week. It's nice.

Comment by esseph 49 minutes ago

GrapheneOS

Comment by Waterluvian 6 minutes ago

I think I’m old enough to have experienced this cycle so many times with so many businesses that I just feel kind of silly to hate on Apple or Microsoft or whoever. They’re all just maximizing profits as designed.

I think people find it easier to scowl at the villain du jour than to dig into the deep complex issue of when capitalism doesn’t work, when the government isn’t doing enough, and what we could do about it… or the feeling that we really can’t do much.

Comment by legitster 2 hours ago

This means Apple is literally going to take nearly 3x in fees from Patreon's customers than Patreon is taking from their own customers.

My understanding is that the reason the number 30% is so magical is a historical anomaly. When software was physically distributed back in the day, 15% of the MSRP was reserved for the distributor and another 15% for the retailer. When these digital marketplaces were set up, the companies just said "well, we're the distributor and the retailer, so we'll keep both". Forgetting the fact that the cost to distribute and retail the software is literally pennies on the dollar of what it used to be.

I think the irony in this case is that this is a greed problem of their own making. When Steve Jobs announced that apps on the original iPhone would only be $1-$3, he set off the first enshittification crisis in the software industry. In 2008, Bejeweled cost $19.99 if you wanted to buy it on the PC. On the iPhone it was $0.99! This artificially low anchor price is what kicked off the adoption of ad and subscription driven software models in the first place.

Comment by bryanlarsen 1 hour ago

My understanding was that the retailer margin was 50% and the distributor margin was 10%. So Apple/Steam/etc went "half of 60% is a great deal".

Of course the retailer margin is never actually 50%. That's theoretical if 100% of product is sold at MSRP. Actual retail margins are about 25% because of sales, write-offs, et cetera.

OTOH when there's a sale in Steam, they still get their full cut (of the reduced price).

Comment by tessela 24 minutes ago

I remember writing apps for PalmOS (long time ago) distributors like PalmGear took over 60% from international developers like me, plus they held your earnings until you hit a minimum payout threshold. Add bank fees on top of that, and it was basically not worth developing for the platform. 30% felt like a godsend in comparison. (I'm not defending the Apple / Google tax)

Comment by legitster 1 hour ago

From what I could find, it does seem that major retailers back in the day (CompUSA, Circuit City, etc) were only making 15% margin on software sales. This is much lower than other product categories - but also software didn't take up much floor space.

Comment by marcosdumay 14 minutes ago

It coupled the small floor space with high prices, and an extreme overall easiness of management (low weight, resistance to small impacts, possibility of stacking, etc).

So that margin not only had to pay for small management costs, and had small opportunity costs on the floor space, but it also was divided by a large unitary price.

Comment by gdilla 1 hour ago

its agency model vs retail model. Recall - Amazon hated the agency model, where the publisher sets the price (and 30% cut goes to app store - Jobs sold this as amazing deal). Retail model the retailer sets the price, and the publisher is guaranteed the wholesale price. Amazon preferred the latter because they competed on dynamic price setting. this was so long ago we forget.

Comment by scyzoryk_xyz 21 minutes ago

Had no idea about the history and the 15%/15% split but when the topic comes up I just remember how good the 30% seemed back in, what, 2008?

It made perfect sense that this shiny new iOS platform would take 30% of a cheap app to ensure that it matches the high quality of iOS. These were little productivity apps and games at the time.

This however - I just don't understand what the need is for an app at all for Patreon. Isn't this a website/platform kind of thing? Wouldn't an app just be an additional window into the Patreon platform?

What's next - 30% of my pizza price goes to Apple because I ordered it on my phone?

Comment by pixl97 4 minutes ago

>What's next - 30% of my pizza price goes to Apple because I ordered it on my phone?

I'm pretty sure Apple has discussed things exactly like this.

Their upper management really does tend to think that 30% of any monetary transaction on an Apple platform belongs to them. Too bad our government is too busy being ran by the billionaires to do anything about these abuses from billionaires.

Comment by wat10000 10 minutes ago

I was working for a small software company at the time and we thought it was outrageous. We were selling our software online direct through our own web site and the cost was far lower. A few percent for credit card processing fees, and the server/bandwidth cost was inconsequential.

Comment by kccqzy 31 minutes ago

Steve Jobs never announced a price ceiling for apps on the App Store. The well-known I Am Rich app for iPhone retailer for $999, the actual price ceiling.

Comment by Noaidi 12 minutes ago

Boycott Apple services. It’s the only way they will listen.

Comment by pixl97 9 minutes ago

Yea, that won't do much. How about convict Apple of monopoly practices.

Comment by ks2048 6 minutes ago

Tim Cook hanging out with Trump at the White House a few days ago - not a good sign this will happen anytime soon.

Comment by Noaidi 5 minutes ago

I really don’t understand this attitude. Of course it will. If enough people do it. This is how corporations change not through protest and we’re certainly not going to get any antimonopoly anything going on soon.

They make literally about 40% of their profit off of Apple services. Do you really think if people on mass stopped buying Apple TV, Apple Pay, Apple Music, an iCloud, they wouldn’t care?

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/01/2025-marked-a-record-...

I mean the minute people started talking a general worker strike in Minneapolis all of a sudden all these companies freaked our and wrote a letter protesting about IVE’s behavior in Minneapolis.

Comment by mrcwinn 51 minutes ago

While its true that creators often share "extras" in return for support, it's crazy to call the support itself a "digital good." I can only assume they mean it is digitally good for their business.

Comment by leoh 2 hours ago

Sad, mean, and pointless

Comment by advisedwang 1 hour ago

Apple needs this to stay afloat, you know

Comment by SchemaLoad 51 minutes ago

Those greedy artists and creators depriving Apple of their profits.

Comment by jojobas 41 minutes ago

Poe's law hit me hard.

Comment by Gualdrapo 1 hour ago

Knowing there are Apple fanboys around HN (I got downvoted for saying the liquid glass thing and the iphone air were pointless) I fear they will take your comment seriously

Comment by soundsgoodman 24 minutes ago

how is this legal

Comment by jmclnx 2 hours ago

I thought that already happened :)

But from past threads in a Linux Forum, seems this only applies to people using the Apple IOS App for Patreon. Not sure if using Apple Laptops.

But if you use Patreon's WEB Site directly, the fee cannot be collected by Apple.

That was my take anyways.

Comment by plorkyeran 1 hour ago

Per the article it's already happened for 96% of creators and this is the deadline for the remaining 4%.

Comment by volemo 1 hour ago

> But from past threads in a Linux Forum, seems this only applies to people using the Apple IOS App for Patreon. Not sure if using Apple Laptops. But if you use Patreon's WEB Site directly, the fee cannot be collected by Apple.

Moreover, the fee only applies to the subscriptions made using Apple's payment system. That being said, in most jurisdictions their payment system is the only one developers can use in an app. IMHO, this is the real problem.

Comment by repeekad 2 hours ago

I can’t remember being more enraged than when I learned my YouTube premium was more expensive per month than it needed to be because I had signed up on iPhone, so many people wasting money every month, and YouTube isn’t allowed to mention the option to pay on web

If they weren’t a public company, you’d think they were the mob. I’ll never trust the Apple ecosystem ever again

Comment by jajuuka 1 hour ago

Yep, the tax comes from using the Patreon's in-app purchase system. Using a browser on an iPhone/iPad or any other device will not be taxed. Seen many creators putting in their bios suggesting people use the browser instead of the in app purchase.

Patreon fought this for a while but Apple has all the leverage unfortunately.

Comment by idontwantthis 1 hour ago

Isn’t this what Epic just sued and won over?

Comment by HDThoreaun 53 minutes ago

Epic didnt really win. If i recall correctly the ruling ended up being that 3rd party payment processors are allowed but 27% of app revenue is still owed to apple if that route is taken. So you can save 3% by using 3rd party payment processing but thats around how much those services cost anyway so no real saving

Comment by ceejayoz 49 minutes ago

They tried that. The judge, correctly, went "uh the fuck you will".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple

> While Apple implemented App Store policies to allow developers to link to alternative payment options, the policies still required the developer to provide a 27% revenue share back to Apple, and heavily restricted how they could be shown in apps. Epic filed complaints that these changes violated the ruling, and in April 2025 Rogers found for Epic that Apple had willfully violated her injunction, placing further restrictions on Apple including banning them from collecting revenue shares from non-Apple payment methods or imposing any restrictions on links to such alternative payment options. Though Apple is appealing this latest ruling, they approved the return of Fortnite with its third-party payment system to the App Store in May 2025.

Comment by frizlab 51 minutes ago

I think it’s not that simple. These are not my words and I cannot only post the link [0] as the author uses the referrer to hide his articles from HN, but here’s the text:

Once again, Patreon is going to strong-arm all of us into "charge at the moment of sign-up" instead of "charge on the first of the month." They have wanted this for years, and once again they are saying that Apple has given them cover to demand it. Here's what I wrote when they tried to pull this shit a year and a half ago and then chickened out:

Patreon has two billing models, monthly (bills on the first of the month, or whenever they get around to it) and daily (charges you the moment you sign up.)

For several years now, they have been trying really hard to get creators to switch to daily billing whether they like it or not, with a series of intrusive nags and dark patterns. E.g., the "Settings" tab always has an "unread" alert on it reminding me that I have not made the "recommended" change.

Now they're going to force everyone to switch, and they're blaming Apple for it. And, to be clear, fuck Apple, but also fuck Patreon, this is their choice and it's going to mean that I can no longer use their service.

Here's a support request I just sent them, again, after clicking 15 levels deep into their FAQ before finding the thing that might contact a human. Since the email alerting me of this change came from a "noreply" address because of course it did.

Feel free to send your own:

---

Subject: Subscription billing is unacceptable

You recently sent mail saying that you're going to force me to switch from monthly billing to subscription billing.

Subscription billing is unacceptable for my Patreon. It does not work.

I sell monthly memberships to a physical nightclub. The memberships begin on the first of the month. I fulfill and mail the physical membership cards on the first of the month. If you make me switch to daily billing, that means I will have to do merch fulfillment on a daily basis instead, and I simply cannot do that.

If you force me to switch from a monthly cycle to a daily cycle I will have no choice but to stop using Patreon.

To be clear: I do not give a shit about the iOS app. Not one fractional fuck is given. If the solution to this problem is that people cannot sign up for, or access, my Patreon from the iOS app, that is 100% acceptable to me.

I know for a fact that none -- zero, 0% -- of my patrons have signed up using the iOS app. I know this because I had to warn them away from it, due to the 30% Apple Tax, and all of them complied. All of them. The iOS app is utterly meaningless to me and to my patrons.

(Also you are blaming this on Apple's bullying, which is simply not credible. You've been nagging me to change to subscription billing for years, with the little red error icon appearing everywhere. This is your decision. You are transparently using Apple as an excuse.)

---

I said this same thing to you a year and a half ago, the last time you tried to pull this nonsense. Second verse, same as the first. Last time, support replied that they "completely get why this change would be upsetting" and "will bring my feedback to the team." Uh huh.

Patreon's absolutely awful level of service and support has been a huge problem for quite some time, but I am really not looking forward to having to figure out how to implement recurring monthly billing on my own.

Patreon, YOU HAD ONE JOB.

[0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2026/01/patreon-is-lying-again-and-...

Comment by chongli 24 minutes ago

Why do you have to do merch fulfillment on a daily basis? Just inform people before signup that you only send out membership cards on the first of the month and if they sign up at any other time they'll have to wait until the first of the next month to get their card sent in the mail.

Alternatively, they could show up at the nightclub in person and bring their phone with proof of purchase and the bouncer could hand them a membership card and cross their name off a list.

Comment by joshstrange 1 hour ago

When the App Store first launched I think 30% was pretty fair fee for Apple to collect, but that was a long time ago, and before IAP/Subscriptions. Apple might still be entitled to some percentage but they've expanded to cover more and more things (like this Patreon change or Kindle back in the day) and now we have moved far, far beyond the pale.

Apple (perhaps like all corporations but I'm focusing on Apple) is a greedy company that has massively lost it's way. Tim Cook support fascists and/or anything to improve the bottom line, especially if it increases "services" [0]. Alan Dye (thank god he is now busy screwing up Meta) shipped the worst UI revamp I've seen in a while from a company Apple's size and the iOS/iPadOS/visionOS/macOS software is all in dire straits. And they managed to do all of this while alienating developers left and right and playing chicken with governments around the world [0] instead of relaxing their hold on their platforms.

But who cares? The stock price went up. /s

I was overjoyed to see Alan Dye leave (and Jony Ive) and hope that we don't have to wait too much longer to bid Tim Cook adieu. Whoever takes over next has a lot of work ahead to dig out of the hole Tim Cook dug for Apple.

Tim Cook might be the best thing for shareholders but he has been horrible for product quality (software and hardware) and for democracy.

[0] Pay no attention to how much of services revenue came from the Google search deal with the majority of the rest coming from casinos for children and adults alike.

[1] Like the EU DMA, which, I have publicly and privately voiced my dislike of parts of it but Apple has no one to blame but themselves. By keeping a white-knuckle grip on their revenue they forced governments across the world to pass laws (often bad IMHO) that fragment and confuse the entire iOS market.

Comment by JKCalhoun 52 minutes ago

30% was always excessive.

I suspect developers are looking for these workaround because of the 30%. If Apple had asked for, say, 10%, would there be as many developers looking for loopholes?

I don't know. Apple perhaps should ask for compensation for "vouching for" the developer's app, hosting the app, distributing the app. But Steam shows us another model where the developer themselves pay a modest up-front cost to have their app hosted ($100) and then Steam steps out of the way.

I wonder if this would go a long way too to thinning the herd so to speak from the Apple App Store—perhaps improve the overall quality of the apps submitted.

Comment by scottyah 28 minutes ago

To be fair, the fee is really 15%- 30% only comes into play only after you've made $1mm USD in the prior year.

Comment by cyberax 30 minutes ago

I think a lot of developers were willing to let it slide when App Store was a luxury market. You could just ignore it and make regular webapps and/or desktop software.

But now iOS is the most popular computing platform in the US. We no longer _have_ an option to ignore it.

And 30% is just crazy. And it's _on_ _top_ of all other expenses: Apple hardware that you need to buy to develop for iOS, $100 per year subscription fee, overhead of using Apple's shitty tools, etc.

Comment by godzillabrennus 1 hour ago

Tim Cook has been horrible for software, but the hardware under his regime has been incredible.

Comment by joshstrange 1 hour ago

May I introduce you to years he let Jony Ive control that. Which brought us things like the butterfly keyboard, thinness at all costs (battery life), and loss of ports (in part due to thinness) that had to be walked back.

Comment by JKCalhoun 49 minutes ago

Yeah, I have no love for Ive's anti-bauhaus philosophy of form-über-alles.

Ports hiding on the back so you have to endure the sound of USB-tin scraping against anodized aluminum, the round mouse, etc.

Comment by bigyabai 1 hour ago

Incredible is stretching things. Apple had to catch up with AMD in efficiency, and they did that. Outside the mobile market, Apple is basically a non-entity.

Comment by Miraste 58 minutes ago

Apple doesn't have huge sales volume for Macs because of macOS and their astronomical pricing schemes, but it's not because of the hardware. Macbooks are easily the best laptops you can buy for most purposes, and they have been since the M1 came out. That has never been true of Apple computers before.

Comment by bigyabai 52 minutes ago

It's because of the hardware. For mobile Apple is competitive, for desktop applications they don't even show up on most benchmarks next to AMD/Nvidia hardware.

For example, you have to scroll beneath last-gen laptop GPUs before you can find any Apple hardware on the OpenCL charts: https://browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks

Comment by Miraste 39 minutes ago

That's also because of software. Apple deprecated OpenCL in MacOS eight years ago. In productivity software with solid Metal implementations, like Blender, the M4 Max is on par with the top of Nvidia's (mobile) 5xxx line, except with much more VRAM.

Comment by bigyabai 3 minutes ago

No software fix exists, Apple's GPUs are architecturally limited to raster efficiency (and now, matmul ops). It's frankly bewildering that a raster-optimized SOC struggles to decisively outperform a tensor-optimized CUDA system in 2026.

Comment by jajuuka 1 hour ago

I agree that the early days when every app was a single purchase and the prices were much higher it made more sense. A lot of people got rich from the App Store. So 30% wasn't a huge piece when you were seeing consistent growth every year in the user base.

I think the most annoying thing is how unevenly the policy is applied. Some megacorps pay the 30% and others like Amazon get sweetheart deals. So it unfortunately comes down to who benefits more. If you have something Apple really wants then they will cut a deal. But if not then you pay the high tax. They've at least cut it down somewhat for smaller devs and teams, but the whole industry needs to change. IAP/Subscriptions shouldn't just inherit the pricing systems of old.

I have a feeling Tim is just going to tank the Trump stuff and then peace out next admin so he gets all the blame. Much like Ive and Dye have been.

Comment by joshstrange 1 hour ago

> I think the most annoying thing is how unevenly the policy is applied. Some megacorps pay the 30% and others like Amazon get sweetheart deals.

I agree, there were deals down to 15% I think (maybe lower) but I don't think that's still happening? I mean, Netflix finally gave up but only after increasing their IAP fee to cover the difference for many years. I might be behind the times on this but I didn't think they still had better cuts for larger corporations. I do know not all developers are treated the same (see Meta still being on the app store after all the shenanigans they pulled with enterprise certs, or Uber), and that does suck. It means that if you are big enough you can break the rules while an indie dev can have everything taken due to an automated system or mistake, even when it's not their fault.

> I have a feeling Tim is just going to tank the Trump stuff and then peace out next admin so he gets all the blame. Much like Ive and Dye have been.

I agree that's likely, though the thought of him staying till the "end" of that is not attractive.

Comment by dpc_01234 23 minutes ago

Should be 50% at least.

Comment by thisislife2 52 minutes ago

I call this the Apple "idiot tax" - 'cos you have to be an idiot in letting Apple exploit you (the developer and the user) this brazenly.

Comment by mort96 43 minutes ago

This is counterproductive. The only alternative to letting Apple exploit you is letting Google exploit you. There are differences, Google is somewhat better on this specific point, but there's enough things Google is worse at (such as privacy) that choosing Google isn't exactly without downsides.

Your mindset results in Apple users thinking "the problem is those stupid Android idiots who accept being in an ad tech company's spyware garden" and Android users thinking "the problem is those stupid Apple idiots who accept that 30% of literally everything they do goes to Apple". In reality, we have a common enemy in the big tech duopoly and extremely lacklustre regulation which lets them keep doing this shit. You calling me an idiot for making a different shitty trade-off than you helps nobody.

Comment by thisislife2 33 minutes ago

You do have an alternative to both Google and Apple, which gives you the best of both worlds - it's called the Sailfish mobile OS - https://sailfishos.org/ . (As for my snarky post, read my other comment in this same thread to understand why I posted what I posted.)

Comment by mort96 32 minutes ago

I don't think I can send or receive money to and from my friends or pay my public transport fare from Sailfish.

Comment by thisislife2 28 minutes ago

If there's an Android app for it, it should run on Sailfish OS too. They are working hard to make more and more apps compatible with it as this old discussion highlights - https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/banking-apps-on-sailfish-os/1...

Comment by mort96 26 minutes ago

These days, Google has foolproof ways for an app to query and check if it's running on a "genuine" (read: Google-controlled, locked down) system.

I'm not switching to Sailfish.

Comment by thisislife2 11 minutes ago

Who am I to tell you how to spend your money? The point is, there are alternative unlike what you claimed. There is currently no foolproof way yet for Google to block apps. Also, it doesn't matter, in the long run - once the adoption of Sailfish OS picks up and it reaches critical mass, developers will switch to building apps for it. The "digital sovereignty movement" also helps. Russia has already bought and forked the source code of Sailfish OS and adopted it as its "national" state-sanctioned mobile operating system. This has had a ripple effect where many Russian apps have now been ported on it. China too has already forked Android to create it own "official" OS and most Chinese apps now also work on it. Similar attempts are going on with other countries too, who don't wish to be trapped in the duopoly that is Apple and Google in the mobile phone industry.

Comment by mort96 10 minutes ago

I would like nothing more than for a third viable competitor to show up.

I don't think you calling me an idiot will make that happen faster, is the point.

Comment by dymk 47 minutes ago

Victim blaming

Comment by thisislife2 38 minutes ago

Every time you spend money, you are casting a vote for the kind of world you want. - Don't most of you here tell me that corporates don't need regulations as smart people "vote with their wallet"? If this is what some want to spend money on, the term "idiot" sounds justified ... anyway, the point was not to offend; just to embarrass some mildly to introspect their purchasing decision.

Comment by dpc_01234 27 minutes ago

Oh, now ios users are an oppressed group. How cute.

Comment by mort96 9 minutes ago

Being a victim and being an oppressed group are not the same thing...