Apple's position on this is really untenable as they market the iPhone as a device for work as well as personal communication. In the policy, they are saying that you can only buy ads without IAPs if it's some kind of multimedia campaign management app. Fine, that makes sense if you're running a corporate marketing campaign. How does it make sense if you're a small business running a small-time campaign? This is yet another overreach of the IAP model. It makes some kind of sense to have it for purchases that unlock app features or content, but IAP to buy an ad on Facebook makes no more sense than an IAP to buy a real-life piece of furniture: the terms of the transaction are completely outside the scope of "stuff the app does".
I agree about the over reach part. I am not an Apple apologist at all and agree with others that when device growth stalls (it will) and then services growth stalls (it will) Apple when then really start its ads push and a further push into getting it's 30% tribute on all app purchases.
But, This isn't yet a stretch into all ad spend - I do think Apple will go there too eventually.
In practice Apple is saying paying to boost an organic post is in effect an "in app purchase". They are correct. The purchase happens in the Facebook "blue" app. I actually haven't seen or done it with a boosted post but that is what Apple is saying. You post something via the Facebook "blue" app...get a notice that it's been seen by a few people, so pay a bit to get it seen by more and all of that is done via that one app....so an "in app purchse".
Regular ads are done with the Ads Manager app....a separate app from the Facebook "blue" app. So, ads themselves are not yet subject to this 30% bounty. Again I haven't done it on the app but in the web ads manager you can boost a post from there too so likely you can in the Ads Manager app...not sure though. If you can then you avoid the 30%. I suspect most if not all small businesses, etc have no idea what Ads Manager is or are not very familiar with it.
I have a particular disdain for the app store generally so I don't like this at all. But, you can see where Apple has been and will go...force everything to an app instead of mobile web browser (by nerfing webkit on iOS) than force 30% tribute on "purchases".
I have no idea how this escapes any anti trust scrutiny, especially compared to what M$FT did with IE back in the day and got dinged for it.
> You post something via the Facebook "blue" app...get a notice that it's been seen by a few people, so pay a bit to get it seen by more and all of that is done via that one app....so an "in app purchse".
I just don't see how this is something other than a simplified way of buying an ad, like in the Ads Manager. Sure, there are influencers and wannabe-influencers who pay to boost their posts for clout or something, that doesn't change the fact that this has a real business application. And for that use, it seems like Apple is modifying the status quo by taking something that used to not be an IAP (buying an ad) and deciding that you can't have a new way of buying one without using the IAP system. Maybe it was actually about whether it's all in one app or not rather than the nature of the purchase. But I don't think that describes the status quo of how these rules work, wouldn't the logical extreme be that you should be able to buy Kindle books in the Amazon Shopping app?
Ads are not affected. This is about "boosts", which is a Facebook word meaning "An additional tax you pay to artificially prioritize your ad over un-boosted ads".
> How does it make sense if you're a small business running a small-time campaign?
You should ask yourself why Facebook followers of a business don't see posts from that business unless they're "boosted".
This will set a precedent though. Once they start taxing boosts they are just a couple moves away from taxing any kind of Ad buying.
What’s worrisome about this is that Apple is using it’s dominant position to possibly tax every transaction that happens in their ecosystem.
In a couple of years they could demand Amazon, Uber, DoorDash, etc. to pay fees too. Perhaps not 30% but they could certainly add a 3% fee to all those transactions. Something that looks reasonable to the public opinion and yet something that’s fundamentally fucked.
This is Apple operating like the IRS for their profit.
How is a boosted post not a type of ad campaign? It's paying for placement of your advertising. Whether Facebook is being fair to businesses is irrelevant. If it was about the practice being too immoral to allow in the app store they could ban Facebook from showing boosted posts in the feed on their app, but instead Apple is just trying to enforce the use of IAPs to buy them.
They are really asking to have the App Store regulated, aren’t they.
It’s not like Facebook is a competitor of theirs, and they’re already making plenty of cash and market share. Why stir the pot and give regulators even more ammunition?
I’ve just finished “After Steve” by Tripp Mickle and it strikes me as a good interpretation of the last 10 years at Apple strategically.
- Apple was pretty much dead when Steve Jobs came back but he rescued it through a string of great products (iMac, iPod, OSX Macs, iPhone and iPad)
- When Tim Cook succeeded Steve he knew he wasn’t a product person so Jony Ive took on that role
- Thanks to (mainly) the iPhone Apple stock started climbing and more and more investors started taking an interest in the company
- The iPhone 6 and 6S were the turning point - the 6 sending the stock through the roof and the 6S crashing it. As far as investors are concerned, the trouble with product companies are that you’re only one quarter away from disaster
- Ive struggled with his grief over losing Jobs, plus the weight of being the company figurehead without Jobs to shield him and gradually withdrew from Apple
- Acquiring Beats and launching Apple Music, plus the revenue from the ever growing App Store offered Tim Cook a way out, in the eyes of investors.
- Apple changed their strategy to become a services company that values recurring revenue rather than one reliant on continuing product innovation. Cook was quite explicit about this but it’s taken a few years for the shift from products company to services to become apparent.
> Apple changed their strategy to become a services company that values recurring revenue rather than one reliant on continuing product innovation.
Apple's hardware revenue, both in general and in specific categories such as iPhone, Mac, and iPad, is higher now than ever before. Plus now they have Watch, AirPods, etc.
Apple is pursuing "services" revenue simply because it can. It's a supplement for hardware revenue, not a replacement. It's easy money, because customers are locked in. The margins on "services" revenue are practically obscene.
>- When Tim Cook succeeded Steve he knew he wasn’t a product person so Jony Ive took on that role
I would argue in Steve's calculation, Tim Cook was suppose to settle any dispute between Ive and Scot Forstall. And Ive would stick to Industrial Product Design. While the Software would be from another Team of UI expert.
Instead Tim Cook gave every design decision to Ive. And Tim Cook "merged" those group together in the name of "collaboration". A few from HIG Group retired due to conflict with Ive. And we end up with iOS7.
>- Acquiring Beats and launching Apple Music, plus the revenue from the ever growing App Store offered Tim Cook a way out, in the eyes of investors.
I am pretty sure that is Eddy Cue's idea. Arguably the current Apple seems to be Eddy Cue's Apple. Apple Music, Apple TV+.
I think that at this point they know that in future, app store will be regulated. Thats why they have these offensive policies targeted towards specific companies. Earn now as much as possible from this, while its still possible.
Depending on which products get flagged as a core platform service by the European Commission, the digital markets act (DMA) may already be hitting them.
> It’s not like Facebook is a competitor of theirs
Apple's about to launch a new virtual reality headset in just over 2 months, that'll directly compete with Facebook.[0] Facebook's product, unlike pre-iPhone smartphones, is very decent, and Apple seems to target a high price, so the competition will likely be fierce.
I think Apple's perspective is that they do what they want and tell and pay people (i.e., lobbyists, regulators, and politicians) to say that they don't want it regulated. They have unbelievable market power.
> It’s not like Facebook is a competitor of theirs
In a way, yes: both are competing for ad dollars in the iOS space.
If Facebook is forced to slow down or increase ad prices, those are dollars that may end up in Apple ad network, if the customer is targeting iOS users.
> Why stir the pot and give regulators even more ammunition?
Probably if they make more profit then X then the bosses on top get a GIANT bonus. If profits don't grow but are still profitable the bonus will be smaller, and we all know this guys want a bigger yacht or sport car each year. If in 5-10 years Apple will not be good for bonuses they management retire or move to the next place.
> It’s not like Facebook is a competitor of theirs
If Facebook is not a competitor then there's no issue is there? The regulator would step in if there were unfair competition. If they're not competing then there can't be any unfair competition.
I'm convinced Zuck wakes up every morning screaming because he didn't start making a phone when Google/Apple did and just trusted that being a platform on top of every phone was more important, never realizing the foundations would eventually shift this much.
Apple’s strategy to handicap Safari/Web is paying off big time, but it is hitting consumers.
If local businesses are going to be charged an extra 30% tax to notify people of events, then they are just going to slow down. If we get rid of targeted advertisements, then all the ads will be mega-corps and erection pills. Already seeing niche tech companies close shop because no one knows they exist.
In an interesting way, Apple’s system is providing consolidation of sellers towards amazon.
I also think that Apple’s approach to killing the web is what killed stadia, as google knew they were not going to be allowed to get an html version working, and customers wouldn’t pay an additional apple tax to play games over apps.
> Apple’s strategy to handicap Safari/Web is paying off big time, but it is hitting consumers.
This has nothing to do with Safari. This is about Apple taking a cut of in-app purchases for a niche case where it formerly did not. As TFA notes, Apple had been politely asking Facebook (not users, as you suggest) to do this for years.
Or, this has everything to do with safari because surely Apple wishes that every experience with the web was through apps so they would make 30% of all e-commerce revenue.
> If we get rid of targeted advertisements, then all the ads will be mega-corps and erection pills. Already seeing niche tech companies close shop because no one knows they exist.
The headline is more sensational than you're describing. This is the act of buying a specific kind of ad "boosting your content" which is more akin to a digital service consumed in-app than AdWords spend. They aren't taxing putting ads in your app.
You are correct, but it won't be the last change we see with regards to ads, if this one sticks you'll see another grab 6-18 months from now. Right now they are bumping the temp up just one degree to get that frog to a nice simmer.
All billboards are by definition untargeted ads, and they are not at all only for "megaa-corps and erection pills". You can still use context to target an ad at a particular audience e.g. a hosting provider advertising on StackOverflow.
how far will apple take their in-app purchases? It's really getting ridiculous. Will they also request their share if I transfer some money from my bank account via app? Buy a new sofa? A share from airbnb if I rent a spare room? I bet airbnb lets me manage set up the whole experience in their app.
We slowly turn into a world where everything can be managed via an app and apple getting their share on everything is quite ridiculous.
EDIT: I completely forgot that the apple tax is 30%. Unbelievably high.
Apple's been consistent: digital goods and services.
The debate with Facebook reported in WSJ back in August (https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-apple-vs-facebook-pr...) Apple was saying "boosts" are a service to raise the profile of your dating profile or media posts, while FB was saying they were ads to avoid paying for them. All other apps (TikTok and the dating apps) consider it a service, only FB/Insta were playing this game.
This clarification shouldn't have been necessary, FB was playing a game, and Apple closed the loophole.
> unbelievably high
It's not unbelievably high, go have a look at what any platform charges. Also, remember the rate drops in year two, and for those making less than a threshold, etc. etc., so it's not 30%, it's considerably less overall.
They'll take it as far as necessary to to make the same off providing app store services any platform makes for distribution, such as Steam makes off providing Steam.
The problem with IAP is that at 0% for the app itself, Apple cannot offset the costs of the platform they are providing for distribution. So if they take their cut off app sales, then apps give themselves away for free, and charge the price as an IAP, Apple's stuck. They have no choice but to take it off IAP.
> This clarification shouldn't have been necessary, FB was playing a game, and Apple closed the loophole.
That's objectively untrue. This is a new rule, and as The Verge correctly says, "it’s the first time Apple has directly taxed advertising in iOS apps".
Facebook's app was charging advertisers directly for years, without IAP, and Apple approved it. They simply never had an issue with it. Now, they're forcing FB to comply with a brand new rule.
The notion that Facebook was exploiting a loophole is outright Apple PR-speak. Apple was forced to frame is as a brand new policy, otherwise they'd face scrutiny for letting Facebook supposedly "evade" the previous rules.
And that WSJ article documents a disturbing trend of Apple trying to use their leverage to destroy Facebook. Hurting Facebook ads, and then actively pressuring Facebook to switch to a subscription model that Apple would take 30% from, is very dodgy.
>Will they also request their share if I transfer some money from my bank account via app? Buy a new sofa? A share from airbnb if I rent a spare room?
Honestly, why not? I mean if the justification for app store apps handing over a cut currently is "Apple provides the infrastructure and frameworks your app relies on" well that same infrastructure is used when I order a pizza in Uber Eats, when I book an AirBnb, when I do a bank transfer. Why does Apple only get a cut of someone those and not others.
Not defending it more pointing out the argument doesn't hold up when it applies to some but not all transactions.
Well, I was serious in my argument. It is a somewhat realistic next step in my point of view but I consider it absurd, hence the next sentence that we move slowly to a world entirely managed by smartphones and apple honestly just can't get 30% slice of everything just because it's a transaction on an app.
Where is the point where monopolies extract too much value? We have broken up companies before because they treated other unfair and it can be done again if they escalate beyond reason.
"The App Store is now called Apple Stores, a touchphone that sells everything (provided by our third party resellers). If you dont like our stores go shop elsewhere.
I wonder if there is a legal case here, by apple forcefully escalating the business relationship from neutral/orthogonal transactions to one where facebook is forced to be a partner of apple. (And monopoly issues arising from the fact that Apple now has a business interest in increasing facebook's ad sales)
> And monopoly issues arising from the fact that Apple now has a business interest in increasing facebook's ad sales
This is the real downside here. Apple is incentivized to want people to use Facebook boosts and only takes 30% of there revenue away -- so 70% goes toward reinforcing this awful surveillance system.
I think Apple already does get your share, because almost everything in the Apple Store is more expensive than it is otherwise, because companies pass the tax down onto consumers.
I think the first few lines are fear mongering. Apple is obviously not going to ask for a cut when you transfer money in a banking app, pretty sure that will borderline be illegal. Same goes for E-commerce.
> We slowly turn into a world where everything can be managed via an app
Is it not fair then, for a company creating a platform for the app, making your app available to billions of users, while also keeping the platform safe and providing new features and capabilities consistently to ask for a cut of transactions made on their platform?
As an App Store developer, I eagerly await those billions of users.
Marketing is hard, and expensive. I don't expect Apple to do my marketing for me — and they don't — but let's not pretend that Apple is providing customers. Potential != Actual. Moreover, the existence of 3rd party apps is a selling point for Apple devices. Do we developers get a cut of Apple's hardware sales?
> while also keeping the platform safe
The crap store is full of scams. And now it's advertising gambling all over the place, even in the listings of non-gambling apps.
Is it fair to consumers that they pay a lot of money for a new shiny Apple device, but after they take the device home, Apple continues to demand a cut of things that consumers do on those devices, forever?
I would say no, because of the lock-in. Your argument would make more sense if I could go off and browse any one of a hypothetical 20 competing platforms, but that's not the case.
I'm old enough to remember when Facebook started extracting an IAP tax on their own app platform where none previously existed. So forgive me for enjoying this particular turn of the wheel.
I wonder what the ultimate fate of apps will be. If browsers get great sandbox features and hardware acceleration with access to all sensors will there be a future for apps?
Apple is pretty incentivized to not allow that future to be realized so we’ll see.
Though I do see the value of curation, reviews and exposure, it’s not really clear from me technically why you can’t side load apps onto iPhones easily.
What really is the relevant difference between an app and an installed website using browser APIs? When apps were introduced it seemed like a big difference, but now I'm not sure it is.
3D APIs, the best you can get is a PlayStation 3 like hardware, while on native you will get whatever the last version of Metal/Vulkan/DX 12 will give you.
Don't expect ray tracing or mesh shaders coming to 3D Web during the next decade.
You're saying it a future tense, but browsers already have these capabilities. Apple just doesn't allow any browser engines that would embarrass Safari.
There isn't even a performance gap any more. A lot of CSS rendering is GPU-accelerated these days. There's WASM and WebGPU for heavy computation, and it works, e.g. web-based Figma has become a $20 billion threat to Adobe's native applications.
OTOH SwiftUI is still immature and a big step backwards in performance.
In the case of mobile web games, most of the perceived performance gap is due to game engines not optimizing for web experience. If you use a low level Webgl rendering library, or build you own renderer, it becomes apparent that WebGl 2 is capable to deliver a range of products far exceeding what currently exists in that space.
If Safari just allowed users to hide the address/tab bar to play games it would suddenly make web games, of App Store quality, instantly viable.
Interesting. Apple won't give up its golden goose without a fight. Nor Google by that matter. Remember that Google is basically the one investing lots of cash with chrome.
They won't decimate their android devs nor their huge investment in the android ecosystem. Heck , by a business perspective alone, they have +80% of the mobile landscape. Are they going to give up this edge just because?
Also, the app/play stores sold convenience, easiness, and confidence of app installs. Gen Z basically knows how to use app/play stores to find what they want and there's an article stating they're even using TikTok to search for things. That part over there tells you where do you need to put your $$$. Bet money google is trying to come up with ways to attract that segment.
We as devs have to be prepared for everything society throws at us. From improving our web dev skills to learn a mobile framework should the occasion arise (RN, Flutter, Maui? tauri probably?).
I personally, as with Meta and metaverse as of this moment, don't see myself using web installs to mobile apps any time soon. Web apps have their purposes and mobile apps have theirs too. More diversification (platforms) is better.
> If browsers get great sandbox features and hardware acceleration with access to all sensors
Seems like you already realize this, but at least on iPhone, they won't. Apple will continue to sandbag safari while banning other browser engines in order to nudge users toward apps.
> If browsers get great sandbox features and hardware acceleration with access to all sensors will there be a future for apps?
Sounds like surveillance hell. Websites already abuse "location" permissions to scoop up data on their users. There's no way this pattern of behaviour won't extend to every other input on a phone. And you can't firewall an SPA from "phoning home" because phoning home is often essential to its basic function. Not that apps are much better in this regard thanks to the lack of user freedom on iOS.
It’s already slimy that social networks, Meta’s most prominently, cut users off from the people who choose to follow them unless they pay for these sorts of things, so this is just slime on top of slime. All our most valuable companies, rolling around in nasty slop.
Indeed, nobody outside FB cares that Apple makes their life harder, per se. The issue is that Apple changes their "rules" all the time, and wields enormous power not only over the other giants, but everyone, especially those that have or aspire to run honest digital businesses of different sorts. Not only do they take a massive cut of it, but they're directly competing with those they "moderate" (aka rule over), in many instances.
The result of these companies growing like cancer into every related field, is that it gridlocks and stifles innovation. We've seen this with AT&T and Microsoft. It's always bad for consumers.
Once the iPhone is essentially the natural monopoly/common carrier, how well do you think society will be able to regulate it from becoming ultra dominant?
Don't fall into the fallacy that "things popular with young people" means that they will stay popular as they age. The social pressures that are driving people to use iOS (iMessage being the preferred messaging app) falls off over time.
Readit News
But, This isn't yet a stretch into all ad spend - I do think Apple will go there too eventually.
In practice Apple is saying paying to boost an organic post is in effect an "in app purchase". They are correct. The purchase happens in the Facebook "blue" app. I actually haven't seen or done it with a boosted post but that is what Apple is saying. You post something via the Facebook "blue" app...get a notice that it's been seen by a few people, so pay a bit to get it seen by more and all of that is done via that one app....so an "in app purchse".
Regular ads are done with the Ads Manager app....a separate app from the Facebook "blue" app. So, ads themselves are not yet subject to this 30% bounty. Again I haven't done it on the app but in the web ads manager you can boost a post from there too so likely you can in the Ads Manager app...not sure though. If you can then you avoid the 30%. I suspect most if not all small businesses, etc have no idea what Ads Manager is or are not very familiar with it.
I have a particular disdain for the app store generally so I don't like this at all. But, you can see where Apple has been and will go...force everything to an app instead of mobile web browser (by nerfing webkit on iOS) than force 30% tribute on "purchases".
I have no idea how this escapes any anti trust scrutiny, especially compared to what M$FT did with IE back in the day and got dinged for it.
I just don't see how this is something other than a simplified way of buying an ad, like in the Ads Manager. Sure, there are influencers and wannabe-influencers who pay to boost their posts for clout or something, that doesn't change the fact that this has a real business application. And for that use, it seems like Apple is modifying the status quo by taking something that used to not be an IAP (buying an ad) and deciding that you can't have a new way of buying one without using the IAP system. Maybe it was actually about whether it's all in one app or not rather than the nature of the purchase. But I don't think that describes the status quo of how these rules work, wouldn't the logical extreme be that you should be able to buy Kindle books in the Amazon Shopping app?
> How does it make sense if you're a small business running a small-time campaign?
You should ask yourself why Facebook followers of a business don't see posts from that business unless they're "boosted".
https://socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/debat...
What’s worrisome about this is that Apple is using it’s dominant position to possibly tax every transaction that happens in their ecosystem.
In a couple of years they could demand Amazon, Uber, DoorDash, etc. to pay fees too. Perhaps not 30% but they could certainly add a 3% fee to all those transactions. Something that looks reasonable to the public opinion and yet something that’s fundamentally fucked.
This is Apple operating like the IRS for their profit.
It’s not like Facebook is a competitor of theirs, and they’re already making plenty of cash and market share. Why stir the pot and give regulators even more ammunition?
- Apple was pretty much dead when Steve Jobs came back but he rescued it through a string of great products (iMac, iPod, OSX Macs, iPhone and iPad)
- When Tim Cook succeeded Steve he knew he wasn’t a product person so Jony Ive took on that role
- Thanks to (mainly) the iPhone Apple stock started climbing and more and more investors started taking an interest in the company
- The iPhone 6 and 6S were the turning point - the 6 sending the stock through the roof and the 6S crashing it. As far as investors are concerned, the trouble with product companies are that you’re only one quarter away from disaster
- Ive struggled with his grief over losing Jobs, plus the weight of being the company figurehead without Jobs to shield him and gradually withdrew from Apple
- Acquiring Beats and launching Apple Music, plus the revenue from the ever growing App Store offered Tim Cook a way out, in the eyes of investors.
- Apple changed their strategy to become a services company that values recurring revenue rather than one reliant on continuing product innovation. Cook was quite explicit about this but it’s taken a few years for the shift from products company to services to become apparent.
Apple's hardware revenue, both in general and in specific categories such as iPhone, Mac, and iPad, is higher now than ever before. Plus now they have Watch, AirPods, etc.
Apple is pursuing "services" revenue simply because it can. It's a supplement for hardware revenue, not a replacement. It's easy money, because customers are locked in. The margins on "services" revenue are practically obscene.
I would argue in Steve's calculation, Tim Cook was suppose to settle any dispute between Ive and Scot Forstall. And Ive would stick to Industrial Product Design. While the Software would be from another Team of UI expert.
Instead Tim Cook gave every design decision to Ive. And Tim Cook "merged" those group together in the name of "collaboration". A few from HIG Group retired due to conflict with Ive. And we end up with iOS7.
>- Acquiring Beats and launching Apple Music, plus the revenue from the ever growing App Store offered Tim Cook a way out, in the eyes of investors.
I am pretty sure that is Eddy Cue's idea. Arguably the current Apple seems to be Eddy Cue's Apple. Apple Music, Apple TV+.
It only affects EU users though.
Apple's about to launch a new virtual reality headset in just over 2 months, that'll directly compete with Facebook.[0] Facebook's product, unlike pre-iPhone smartphones, is very decent, and Apple seems to target a high price, so the competition will likely be fierce.
[0]: https://www.macrumors.com/2022/09/04/apple-reality-pro-to-be...
Apple is willing to take on greater antitrust risk for revenue now rather than later. I'm eagerly awaiting their earnings call.
In a way, yes: both are competing for ad dollars in the iOS space.
If Facebook is forced to slow down or increase ad prices, those are dollars that may end up in Apple ad network, if the customer is targeting iOS users.
Probably if they make more profit then X then the bosses on top get a GIANT bonus. If profits don't grow but are still profitable the bonus will be smaller, and we all know this guys want a bigger yacht or sport car each year. If in 5-10 years Apple will not be good for bonuses they management retire or move to the next place.
If Facebook is not a competitor then there's no issue is there? The regulator would step in if there were unfair competition. If they're not competing then there can't be any unfair competition.
Sarcasm aside, if Apple isn't competing, and charges all social media services for the boost, what is unfair?
Deleted Comment
If local businesses are going to be charged an extra 30% tax to notify people of events, then they are just going to slow down. If we get rid of targeted advertisements, then all the ads will be mega-corps and erection pills. Already seeing niche tech companies close shop because no one knows they exist.
In an interesting way, Apple’s system is providing consolidation of sellers towards amazon.
I also think that Apple’s approach to killing the web is what killed stadia, as google knew they were not going to be allowed to get an html version working, and customers wouldn’t pay an additional apple tax to play games over apps.
This has nothing to do with Safari. This is about Apple taking a cut of in-app purchases for a niche case where it formerly did not. As TFA notes, Apple had been politely asking Facebook (not users, as you suggest) to do this for years.
That gives the the leverage to demand the cut from everything, because they can then kick you off of iphones if you don't comply.
The headline is more sensational than you're describing. This is the act of buying a specific kind of ad "boosting your content" which is more akin to a digital service consumed in-app than AdWords spend. They aren't taxing putting ads in your app.
Xbox cloud streaming seems to work just fine?
We slowly turn into a world where everything can be managed via an app and apple getting their share on everything is quite ridiculous.
EDIT: I completely forgot that the apple tax is 30%. Unbelievably high.
Apple's been consistent: digital goods and services.
The debate with Facebook reported in WSJ back in August (https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-apple-vs-facebook-pr...) Apple was saying "boosts" are a service to raise the profile of your dating profile or media posts, while FB was saying they were ads to avoid paying for them. All other apps (TikTok and the dating apps) consider it a service, only FB/Insta were playing this game.
This clarification shouldn't have been necessary, FB was playing a game, and Apple closed the loophole.
> unbelievably high
It's not unbelievably high, go have a look at what any platform charges. Also, remember the rate drops in year two, and for those making less than a threshold, etc. etc., so it's not 30%, it's considerably less overall.
They'll take it as far as necessary to to make the same off providing app store services any platform makes for distribution, such as Steam makes off providing Steam.
The problem with IAP is that at 0% for the app itself, Apple cannot offset the costs of the platform they are providing for distribution. So if they take their cut off app sales, then apps give themselves away for free, and charge the price as an IAP, Apple's stuck. They have no choice but to take it off IAP.
That's objectively untrue. This is a new rule, and as The Verge correctly says, "it’s the first time Apple has directly taxed advertising in iOS apps".
Facebook's app was charging advertisers directly for years, without IAP, and Apple approved it. They simply never had an issue with it. Now, they're forcing FB to comply with a brand new rule.
The notion that Facebook was exploiting a loophole is outright Apple PR-speak. Apple was forced to frame is as a brand new policy, otherwise they'd face scrutiny for letting Facebook supposedly "evade" the previous rules.
And that WSJ article documents a disturbing trend of Apple trying to use their leverage to destroy Facebook. Hurting Facebook ads, and then actively pressuring Facebook to switch to a subscription model that Apple would take 30% from, is very dodgy.
Transferring money between banks accounts via an app seems like a digital service. How is it not?
That's because they are all monopoloies and that's the monopoly rate.
I would gladly host a competing app store to apple or steam where I took less than a 30% cut. In fact, I would do it at cost. So what's preventing me?
Don't you dare say that apple doesn't have a monopoly here.
Well, there's the $40 billion in iPhone hardware sales last quarter...
Absolutely monstrous IMHO and I have no idea how they appear to avoid half the flak M$ got for being just like this in the 90s.
> It's not unbelievably high
Stockholm syndrome?
Honestly, why not? I mean if the justification for app store apps handing over a cut currently is "Apple provides the infrastructure and frameworks your app relies on" well that same infrastructure is used when I order a pizza in Uber Eats, when I book an AirBnb, when I do a bank transfer. Why does Apple only get a cut of someone those and not others.
Not defending it more pointing out the argument doesn't hold up when it applies to some but not all transactions.
Where is the point where monopolies extract too much value? We have broken up companies before because they treated other unfair and it can be done again if they escalate beyond reason.
I wonder if there is a legal case here, by apple forcefully escalating the business relationship from neutral/orthogonal transactions to one where facebook is forced to be a partner of apple. (And monopoly issues arising from the fact that Apple now has a business interest in increasing facebook's ad sales)
This is the real downside here. Apple is incentivized to want people to use Facebook boosts and only takes 30% of there revenue away -- so 70% goes toward reinforcing this awful surveillance system.
> We slowly turn into a world where everything can be managed via an app
Is it not fair then, for a company creating a platform for the app, making your app available to billions of users, while also keeping the platform safe and providing new features and capabilities consistently to ask for a cut of transactions made on their platform?
As an App Store developer, I eagerly await those billions of users.
Marketing is hard, and expensive. I don't expect Apple to do my marketing for me — and they don't — but let's not pretend that Apple is providing customers. Potential != Actual. Moreover, the existence of 3rd party apps is a selling point for Apple devices. Do we developers get a cut of Apple's hardware sales?
> while also keeping the platform safe
The crap store is full of scams. And now it's advertising gambling all over the place, even in the listings of non-gambling apps.
Is it fair to consumers that they pay a lot of money for a new shiny Apple device, but after they take the device home, Apple continues to demand a cut of things that consumers do on those devices, forever?
Apple is pretty incentivized to not allow that future to be realized so we’ll see.
Though I do see the value of curation, reviews and exposure, it’s not really clear from me technically why you can’t side load apps onto iPhones easily.
Don't expect ray tracing or mesh shaders coming to 3D Web during the next decade.
There isn't even a performance gap any more. A lot of CSS rendering is GPU-accelerated these days. There's WASM and WebGPU for heavy computation, and it works, e.g. web-based Figma has become a $20 billion threat to Adobe's native applications.
OTOH SwiftUI is still immature and a big step backwards in performance.
If Safari just allowed users to hide the address/tab bar to play games it would suddenly make web games, of App Store quality, instantly viable.
They won't decimate their android devs nor their huge investment in the android ecosystem. Heck , by a business perspective alone, they have +80% of the mobile landscape. Are they going to give up this edge just because?
Also, the app/play stores sold convenience, easiness, and confidence of app installs. Gen Z basically knows how to use app/play stores to find what they want and there's an article stating they're even using TikTok to search for things. That part over there tells you where do you need to put your $$$. Bet money google is trying to come up with ways to attract that segment.
We as devs have to be prepared for everything society throws at us. From improving our web dev skills to learn a mobile framework should the occasion arise (RN, Flutter, Maui? tauri probably?).
I personally, as with Meta and metaverse as of this moment, don't see myself using web installs to mobile apps any time soon. Web apps have their purposes and mobile apps have theirs too. More diversification (platforms) is better.
Seems like you already realize this, but at least on iPhone, they won't. Apple will continue to sandbag safari while banning other browser engines in order to nudge users toward apps.
Sounds like surveillance hell. Websites already abuse "location" permissions to scoop up data on their users. There's no way this pattern of behaviour won't extend to every other input on a phone. And you can't firewall an SPA from "phoning home" because phoning home is often essential to its basic function. Not that apps are much better in this regard thanks to the lack of user freedom on iOS.
The result of these companies growing like cancer into every related field, is that it gridlocks and stifles innovation. We've seen this with AT&T and Microsoft. It's always bad for consumers.
Once the iPhone is essentially the natural monopoly/common carrier, how well do you think society will be able to regulate it from becoming ultra dominant?