dan

I meant more if people wouldn't have found your app without Apple's App Store. In that case, they're essentially handling marketing for you.

No other app store is allowed to operate on Apple devices

That's only true outside of Europe. In the EU, they were forced to allow third-party app stores. The US government doesn't have the guts to do that, since they focus more on the needs/wants of companies, whereas the EU is really focused on consumer rights.

• Card companies take ~4%
• Patreon takes 10%

Does Patreon's cut not include payment processing?

The other thing that's ridiculous in the USA is how much credit card processing costs. Stripe is around 3%, while in countries it can be half of that (in Australia, it's commonly around 1% for debit cards and 1.5% for credit cards).

Apple is doing nothing in this particular case, not in general. There's cases where the 30% is more justified.

But you're getting literally the same Patreon content.

PWAs aren't great on iPhone... They intentionally limit some functionality to push people towards the App Store.

Some people want everything as apps for some reason.

Why does Apple feel they deserve a 30% cut? In cases like this, Apple aren't providing any value at all.

• Apple aren't providing the content - the creator is.
• Apple aren't providing a platform for the content - Patreon is.
• Apple aren't providing a platform for discovery - people aren't finding Patreon creators solely via Apple products.

Sure, Apple are providing a payments platform, but why do they deserve 10x what Stripe charges?

Interesting case. If the plaintiff wins, I suspect this will mean that sites with videos won't be able to use third-party analytics scripts (not just Meta pixel, but also things like Google Analytics), which would be a pretty large change for the industry.

I'd love to see first-party tracking become more popular again. I self-host Plausible for my sites, but I've considered switching to Swetrix.

uploads a copy of the key to their Microsoft Account

Microsoft added that feature because people kept losing their encryption keys and thus losing all their files if they need to have their computer replaced. They get complaints either way - privacy advocates complain when the key is backed up, and sysadmins/users complain when the key isn't backed up.

Doesn't Hikvision support RTSP?

Though, on the other hand, having the video saved offsite is useful because then anyone with physical access to your home can’t get rid of the video showing they’re there.

I have Blue Iris configured to send all alert videos to one of my storage VPSes via SFTP. As soon as someone is detected outside, the video clip is sent offsite.

The server and the PoE switch that powers the cameras are also on a UPS, which helps if the intruder tries to shut off the power at the main breaker (which, here in California, always needs to be located outside).

It’s in response to you saying isolate the cameras from the internet entirely

The cameras themselves should always be isolated. No internet access for the cameras at all. Your NVR can have network access, and is what would handle uploading the videos to internet storage somewhere.

Reolink

Any cameras that can operate entirely offline are good. Dahua and Hikvision are good too. Look for cameras with RTSP and ONVIF support. ONVIF is a standardized API for interacting with cameras and can handle things like pan/tilt/zoom, sending events from the camera to the NVR (eg motion detection), and a bunch of other things.

I use Blue Iris as my NVR, which is usually regarded as the best, but there's other good software too (like Frigate), and hardware solutions too.

Just follow best practices - keep them isolated on a separate VLAN with no internet access. If you want remote access to your NVR, use a VPN like Tailscale.

The headline makes it sound like he only did this to one piece of art, but he was much busier than that:

According to the police department, Granger chewed up at least 57 of the 160 images