17 ms·

Does Facebook pay Apple 30% of revenue derived from ads made within its iOS app?

• ProAm 6y ago
  No, they do not.
• soulchild37 6y ago
  Lol no
• 3327 6y ago
  Add to exhibit B. sounds like the deal of the century.
• hbosch 6y ago
  Apple's 30% only applies to digital content that further enriches the core app experience. That's my understanding. For instance, Apple does not take 30% of all Amazon purchases through the Amazon iOS app either. Nor do they skim 30% from any retail app. However, if your app happens to be a game (a "free" game, for instance) and your in-app purchases enhance that game in some way (e.g. unlocking features) then Apple gets a cut of that.
  • bredren 6y ago
    Regardless of its categorization, it also seems like accepting revenue from Facebook ads would be the antithesis of Apple’s stance towards customer privacy.
    • liability 6y ago
      If they take a cut of purchases but not ads, doesn't that incentivize the ad supported model vs the paid model? And wouldn't creating such a system of incentives also run against Apple's stance towards customer privacy?
    • tsimionescu 6y ago
      Why? This is about buying ads, not ad revenue. For example, you can pay Facebook so that a picture you took shows up in other people's feeds on Instagram as 'Sponsored'. Question is, is Apple getting their 30% cut from the money you pay Facebook for that?
  • freedomben 6y ago
    It sounds like Apple is trying to close a loop hole around paying the 30% for app purchase. For example, you could make the app "free" but then unlock with in-app purchase, which would skirt the 30% fee. I think Apple is absolutely abusive and I would love for that to be stopped, but this doesn't sound malicious to me on the surface.
    • hbosch 6y ago
      > For example, you could make the app "free" but then unlock with in-app purchase, which would skirt the 30% fee. Lots of apps do this, and they are not exempt from the 30% fee. Basically paywalling an existing part of your app is exactly what the 30% from IAP is for.
  • spiderfarmer 6y ago
    Goes to show how arbitrary their rules are. And how untruthful their reasoning.
    • AlexandrB 6y ago
      I'm confused what you mean by this. It seems pretty consistent to me. Edit: This made more sense when I realized the headline was about purchasing ad placement within the app, not viewing ads.
      • nprz 6y ago
        The Bandcamp app does not allow you to purchase music through the app to avoid the apple tax. OPs comment suggests that Amazon does not pay the apple tax when purchasing digital goods (music, videos, books, etc.) through their app. That seems inconsistent.
        • ArchOversight 6y ago
          You are completely unable to purchase digital goods through the Amazon app. No buying a kindle book, you'll be forced to open a web browser and do it that way. No purchasing movies, or music. Physical goods that are delivered to your home, all good. Not an issue.
    • baddox 6y ago
      Why do you think this is arbitrary? It makes a lot of sense and is pretty obvious when you look across all apps. This tweet is trying to point out a "gotcha" when there is absolutely nothing inconsistent, unreasonable, or shocking here. Apple doesn't take a cut when you order things on the Amazon app, or when you buy stocks on Robinhood, or when you rent a car on Turo. Apple takes a cut from in-app purchases, but that is a term that Apple defines precisely. It obviously doesn't mean "any purchase in any app."
      • ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
        why can't you build your own browser? Why can't you build your own online game shop?
  • mathgorges 6y ago
    This is the answer, I think. Though one could argue that more likes/conversions/CTAs improve's a business's app experience
    • mathgorges 6y ago
      This initially had a wink emoji at the end. I didn't realize HN throws out emojis, and it's absence changes the tone a bit ;-)
  • HugoDaniel 6y ago
    Isnt the while shtick of the ad industry that personalized ads enhance your experience ? Inst Facebook timeline carefully curated based on that ?
    • baddox 6y ago
      No one is "buying personalized ads" as an in-app purchase.
    • ummonk 6y ago
      Maybe you’re weird but most people don’t buy ads to be shown specifically to themselves.
  • jraph 6y ago
    This seems to contradict the fact that Netflix needs to pay the 30% tax for subscriptions done from the iOS app, though it seems like core functionality to me.
    • drivingmenuts 6y ago
      My guess is that Netflix is grandfathered in under long contract. It’s also a predictable source of income year after year, which is far more valuable than an unpredictable app by a smaller developer. It also definitely enhances the value of iOS more than most apps out there. Ultimately, large corporations can get side deals because they wield more power and influence than smaller companies.
    • gumby 6y ago
      Netflix stopped offering subscription through the app (last year IIRC) for this reason, though they grandfathered existing iOS-mediated subscriptions for the obvious customer retention reasons. Also I don’t think you can subscribe to amazon prime via the iOS app — you certainly can’t buy video via the prime video app!
      • ArchOversight 6y ago
        You CAN buy video using the Amazon Prime Video app, it is in the category where Apple gets a 15% cut of the sale.
      • wjnc 6y ago
        The funny thing is that switching to non-Apple payment is hard (I get that that's Apple) and the support staff of Netflix was really helpful in making me switch.
        • whakim 6y ago
          It's actually really annoying, implementation-wise. Apple subscriptions are read-only for third parties, which creates some annoying hurdles where you have to warp your data model to accommodate the fact that someone could have two subscriptions to the same thing at the same time, which normally you wouldn't want to allow them to do.
  • EGreg 6y ago
    That’s because Amazon purchases are of real world products that don’t have zero marginal cost to copy. Maybe a case can be made for adspace having a real cost too?
  • manfredo 6y ago
    Is there a reason why app developers don't just make customers buy DLC and loot boxes from outside the app store? E.g. if a customer wants to buy a skin in Fortnite they just can't do it on the app store they need to go through the web UI.
    • shoulderfake 6y ago
      I think apple forces them to do the transaction through apple
    • a_t48 6y ago
      I believe Apple's rules prohibit even mentioning external digital stores to bypass IAP (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
      • gsich 6y ago
        correct.
      • hnick 6y ago
        Suppose a large group of "helpful" players started advertising/spamming via ingame chat the fact that you can buy VBucks on the official website for cheaper than in game. Totally unaffiliated and not paid for by Epic, of course. Is Epic obligated to censor them because of Apple's rules?
    • bentcorner 6y ago
      I wonder if the apple tax would apply to buying a physical code that is mailed to you.
  • gnicholas 6y ago
    The dividing line is digital versus non-digital content. That's why you can order physical goods from Amazon's app, but not digital content. It's not about enriching the core app experience; if it were, you could buy a video from the Amazon app, which doesn't enrich the core app experience of that app (you watch videos in the Prime Video app, which is separate).
    • mrtksn 6y ago
      > The dividing line is digital versus non-digital content Content that’s consumed on the device to be more precise. You can sell domains and hosting etc. using alternative payment methods. For example I use namecheap’s App to buy domains and I would use CC to do so.
    • tsimionescu 6y ago
      So are Instagram ads not 'digital content'?
      • toast0 6y ago
        Does FB let you buy Instagram ads from in the app?
        • unreal37 6y ago
          Yes.
      • sjwright 6y ago
        It's not "in-app" content.
    • josephduffy 6y ago
      It's a blurry line since the content isn't consumed in the app, but you can buy digital codes for games (such as Nintendo Switch games) in the Amazon app.
      • sukilot 6y ago
  • jzig 6y ago
    What about Kindle e-books?
    • CubsFan1060 6y ago
      You can't buy Kindle books through the Kindle app.
    • jacobr1 6y ago
      Amazon doesn't sell them via their app to avoid the app-store-tax. Instead they'll redirect you to their website in safari. You can borrow KindleUnlimited titles, provided you've purchased that subscription outside of the app. Same thing with Audible, you can use existing credits within the app, but can't purchase more.
  • jeroenhd 6y ago
    One example that complicates things is the Floatplane [1] application, where each channel costs a certain fee per month. The app doesn't do anything other than play videos from the subscribed videos. Because they wouldn't increase their price 30% to reflect the additional Apple fees, every single feature that even mentions the presence of a website that you can pay for a subscription at (including help pages!) have so far had to be removed [2]. The "core app experience" of Floatplane is "you get to watch videos in high quality" and "you get to chat during live streams". Their app is an amalgamation of Patreon and the Youtube video player, both of which are on the App Store already. I don't know why buying video access would be so different from making ads show up. Both are purely digital services. There's probably some vague notion of "consumption" that determines if the fee is mandatory or not, but the rules are as vague as they are arbitrary when you get down to that level. It's clear that the actual rule is "we can make a deal if you're big enough". Apps like Uber have gotten warnings for pulling stunts that smaller developers would get their dev account banned for. Adding 30% on top of Facebook would kill the feature on iOS and subsequently kill iPhone presence among marketeers. [1]: https://www.floatplane.com/ https://www.floatplane.com/ [2]: https://youtu.be/Rs4hTm6B9QQ?t=368 https://youtu.be/Rs4hTm6B9QQ?t=368
    • gruez 6y ago
      Isn't there an exception for "reader" and streaming aps?
      • jeroenhd 6y ago
        I don't think so? I believe Netflix removed the option to sign up from iOS, so I don't think there's an exemption from the fees there.
      • tsimionescu 6y ago
        There is an exemption for another rule - only streaming apps are allowed to offer no functionality until you pay outside the app. If you install the Netflix app, you'll be hit with a login screen and no way to proceed until you go online, create an account, and pay. However, if you were to make a game that had the same UI, it would be refused access to the store - apps must have some level of functionality without requiring a purchase outside the app, except if they are in the 'reader' category.
  • leoplct 6y ago
    This should apply for a ebook purchased through the app (Audible). Following this logic Amazon should pay Apple 30%?
    • aero142 6y ago
      I believe the Kindle app does not allow purchase and don't explain how to purchase new books in the app. It only shows free or kindle unlimited books that you do not own.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  • onhn 6y ago
    In that case, hypothetically what about a separate app that only sells game currency, like vbucks?
  • throwaway_kufu 6y ago
    > Apple's 30% only applies to digital content that further enriches the core app experience. Seems to me FB ads fit the definition. FB core product isn’t a consumer social network, it’s a targeted ad platform, and their actual customers are advertisers that serve ads on the platform. Clearly ad buying/managing enriches the core app experience for FB’s advertisers. Just more favoritism and unequal treatment between the tech giants.
  • theodorton 6y ago
    No, it doesn’t. We just built a merchant app for the App Store where merchants of our platform should be able to handle and process orders made on our website from customers. Apple refused to approve the app unless we added a storefront to our app and used in-app purchases. But that’s not something we consider a core feature of the app.
    • giancarlostoro 6y ago
      Seems they are trying to add these restrictions to smaller new apps and not mess with already established markets. Apple is quite literally toxic to innovation by these practices.
    • xenospn 6y ago
      That doesn't sound right. My app redirects to my website store and Apple never had a problem with that, even after I specifically removed IAP.
      • sushid 6y ago
        If there's one thing that's constant, it's that Apple is somewhat arbitrary when it comes to "enforcing" their TOS on the small guys.
      • RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        Yeah we got away with this for 3 years too and in our most recent updates have been forced to add IAP. As another poster mentioned they've been cracking down tighter and tighter even on small apps.
        • xenospn 6y ago
          Do you sell physical products?
          • RonanTheGrey 6y ago
            Our product has a real-world component yes but the payment part had more to do with the online subscription (which gave you access to the real world component). Covid killed our product though so for us I'm relieved I don't have to deal with Apple's shit anymore to get the app deployed. Still have to deal with it for other clients though :/
  • goodluckchuck 6y ago
    For Facebook’s customers (advertisers), advertising is the core app experience.
  • thehesiod 6y ago
    what if you were to separate the two? Epic creates a token "store" which allows you to apply to various games. This would be like the amazon case =). Same thing could be said if you could buy said tokens in the amazon store
  • coryfklein 6y ago
    To answer this, think of why does Facebook allow users to purchase ads from within the app? Does it make for a better experience to be able to buy an add from your couch, or while traveling? Isn't the Facebook experienced for these users improved by offering for sale goods within the app itself? I think there is a very good case to be made that the in-app experience is improved by allowing these purchases in-app, and the in-app experience and value would be significantly reduced if Facebook did not allow marketers to buy ads using their iPhone or iPad.
• spenvo 6y ago
  I submitted with a hesitant title because I'd genuinely love to know, and I'm surprised there isn't more concrete info on this that's readily available. My strong suspicion is that they don't, and 9to5mac editor has chimed in on twitter saying: "Definitely feels muddy, but think Apple is probably considering FB ads as part of the 'outside goods and services' category. Guideline 3.1.5a makes apps use direct payment for those". If that explanation is true ^, then it's pretty rich, because Apple recently aimed to get 30% of virtual experiences offered through Airbnb. How would those not be considered "outside goods and services" when they involve people outside the app providing goods and services? [0] Others are saying Apple doesn't see it as an "in app purchase"; however, I can click "Place Order" for an ad in the iOS app... I'd call that an in-app purchase! Can all companies let you buy digital stuff within the app with non-Apple payments or in a bill-you-later manner? Just ads? Almost certainly there have been behind-closed-doors discussions on this, as the line has been arbitrarily drawn (either way) to include/exclude this massive company from the 30% tax. Indies don't have the same clarity on the rules; for example, Marco Arment's app Overcast sells ads, but doesn't complete transactions in the app because he was worried he'd need to give up 30%. Like with Apple's quiet program that let Amazon and a couple other token companies get a separate deal on content-app rules [1]: how can small companies on the store know when to press Apple on some rules and not on others (without retaining lawyers)? It's just baffling because Facebook has recently whipped up quite a stir [2] around Apple requiring 30% of creator revenue, yet none of the articles mention this point about Facebook ads getting/not-getting a 30% tax for (probably the better part of) the past decade ... their bread and butter! Furthermore, Facebook is whining about Apple making IDFA tracking opt-in on iOS, yet this company has benefited HUGELY from the fact Apple didn't do that from the start AND somehow decided not to charge 30% on its ad buys on mobile. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-store-airbnb-classpass.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-stor... [1] - https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-amazon-and-common-enemies/ https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-amazon-and-common-enemies... [2]- https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=RRdIX5qlKIuStQWOqY2gCg&q=facebook+fan+event+apple+30%25+livestream&oq=facebook+fan+event+apple+30%25+livestream&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299k1l2.7343.9484.0.10069.11.11.0.0.0.0.193.1171.3j7.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.5.646....0.d2Y-NrDiuA8 https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=RR...
  • 6y ago
• rhacker 6y ago
  Does Apple take 30% of all ad revenue from any app? If not- please bury before this turns into a 900 comment waste of time thread
  • jeeyoungk 6y ago
    This is different because it's talking about _purchasing_ side of things; you can purchase Facebook ads via the iOS app and Apple has been fairly consistent about digital purchases on its platform.
    • rhacker 6y ago
      They don't take a cut from either Amazon or Etsy purchases. These are also things that you purchase in the app.
  • matsemann 6y ago
    You misunderstood, it's not about ads shown, but bought.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  The better question is: Why isn't Apple charging? Because Facebook's users have migrated to mobile over the years. Facebook's users aren't advertisers (per se, most people have a FB account), but surely some of Facebook's ad sales are done via iOS.
  • unreal37 6y ago
    Because creating an ad isn't a transaction, for one. It costs nothing to create an ad. I get billed at the end of the month based on clicks or views, and Apple has nothing to do with that. The ads might not even show on iOS.
• lacker 6y ago
  Facebook and Apple negotiate a revenue sharing agreement that covers all sorts of things, like importantly revenue from apps that are installed via Facebook ads. The 30% take-it-or-leave-it deal only applies to the little guys; once you get big you have a custom negotiation.
  • millstone 6y ago
    No, there's no sweetheart deals. The 30% is applied very consistently to alls apps, big or small. YouTube Red, Spotify, Netflix, Epic are examples of large apps that are/were affected by the 30% cut.
    • ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
      Makes you think, why aren't more players trying to get in the phone space just to disrupt that shit. Google did with Android, I think Mozilla and Facebook had a mozillephone and facebookphone at some point as well no?
      • qaq 6y ago
        As funny as it sounds I think Tesla has enough brand recognition and tech chops to pull something like this off.
        • bsaul 6y ago
          I also had the hope musk would launch into that market and directly confront apple and google. But even for him, that would be a very very wild bet.
      • ivalm 6y ago
        It's hard, look at microsoft/windows phone.
      • bsaul 6y ago
        My bet is that the market is now ripe for another mobile platform. The problem is you don't spawn something like out of thin air, and many big names have failed in the past (amazon, intel with tizen, firefox, ubuntu, microsoft, etc..) Still, now that mobile hardware comes close to being commoditized i think there's hope, maybe from an unexpected place (like the open source community ? one can dream..)
• thesis 6y ago
  Psh, screw Apple. They made us remove the .com from anything that said domain.com because it would help users recognize that we have a site that allows purchasing. We complied of course. :(
  • adoxyz 6y ago
    If anything, I hope this changes. Why shouldn't you be able to tell your customers about your website in an app that you built? Even if you want to say hey go to www.myapp.com and buy there, so what?
    • threeseed 6y ago
      I really don't understand comments like this. No retail store that sells your product allows you to put a giant sticker on it that says "buy this product from us instead and get a 30% discount". You're intentionally trying to benefit from the store's distribution channel at the same trying to screw them out of the money they need to finance it.
      • koyote 6y ago
        If you buy a printer at a retail store there is nothing stopping the manufacturer from having a flyer in the box advertising a cheaper place to buy replacement cartridges. Apple is like Walmart taking a 30% cut off Xbox live subscription fees after a customer buys an Xbox from them.
        • dodobirdlord 6y ago
          Unless the store has a policy against it, which would be perfectly legal and pretty normal.
          • deleted 6y ago
            [deleted]
      • redwall_hp 6y ago
• aerovistae 6y ago
  I hope this gets widely shared, this is important.
• MarcellusDrum 6y ago
  Definitely won't happen, but makes me wonder: If Facebook stopped all their applications (Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp) from working on iOS, who would lose more? Will most people start using other social media platforms more, or will they buy Android devices?
  • mrkramer 6y ago
    Which other social networks?! They would probably use 2 phones one iOS and one Android for FB apps cause utility of FB apps is just too big.
    • ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
      that makes no sense though, people would most likely migrate to Android. You know why? Because their friends would have the app that they can't use without an Android phone. This pretty much killed Windows phones.
    • fakedang 6y ago
      Without FB apps, Google apps and Uber/Lyft, iOS would be a worse graveyard than MacOS store is right now. People would easily move from iMessage to WhatsApp. Heck, if Google and FB banded up right now to reject iOS out of the blue, iOS would fall into an unclimbable chasm. Of course, that won't happen though.
  • criddell 6y ago
    I think iOS users could always use FB in the browser. I can't imagine any ad supported business ignoring iOS users. The demographic is too lucrative.
    • lloyddobbler 6y ago
      As someone who's marketed consumer apps to iOS users (with in-app purchases) - you speak the truth. One freemium iOS app I worked on did nearly 5X the revenue compared to its Android counterpart (others were at varied-but-similar multiples). I imagine the ad-supported business would reflect the same - the iOS audience is just too lucrative for advertisers to ignore. edit to adjust multiple. I went back and looked it up.
• awake 6y ago
  I love this question. It’s plausible enough to imagine Apple charging for ads. But the implications are huge. Imagine every hardware platform charging for transactions made on that platform. It would be like landlords getting a flat percentage of your income on top of an annual fee.
  • ballenf 6y ago
    It would be more like rent is free if you're unemployed, otherwise x% of your income.
  • plexicle 6y ago
    It would instantly tank a lot of huge apps/industries. Especially ones with razor thin margins already. Consider stock trading apps/fees, for one random example at the top of my head.
  • Nasrudith 6y ago
    It doesn't work for both the same reason as the example. Everyone who would be advantaged would leave to the one which doesn't charge fees based on something irrelevant to operation.
• m_crowcroft 6y ago
  I can't imagine Apple is getting a cut of any FB ad revenue (or not anything meaningful). To take the thought a bit further though, FB also has an ads manager app [1] which ad buyers can purchase ads through (pretty much no one uses this app to be fair). No payment ever goes through Apple so I can't imagine they get a cut from sales there either. [1] https://www.facebook.com/business/news/ads-manager-app https://www.facebook.com/business/news/ads-manager-app
• tomasreimers 6y ago
  This is a great question, and it made me think a lot! So Apple differentiates a few types of purchases: - Goods consumed within the app that enhance the app experience (Game upgrades, new functionality within your camera app) - "Reader" apps (NYT, or Wall St Journal) - Physical Goods and Services (Amazon, Airbnb) - so on and so forth A full list can be found here (on their helpful, seemingly recent, marketing site): https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/#:~:text=84%%20of%20apps%20are%20free,%20and%20developers%20pay%20nothing%20to%20Apple https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/#:~.... And the legalese is here in section 3.1: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-app-purchase https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-... For a few categories, this is very well-defined. For example, a ride in Uber/Lyft is clearly a good/service consumed outside of the app, a subscription to Netflix is a subscription, and a +1 life in a game is a consumable digital good. However, for other categories it is not as clear; for example, what category does a "Ride Pass" fall under (which lowers the cost of Uber and Lyft rides, but is a monthly, purely-digital subscription)? Ads as a whole probably gets bucketed into goods and services outside the app (because it doesn't improve your app experience). Beyond that, from a strategic perspective, I suspect Apple isn't trying to get into the b2b game, their ability to control supply there is probably much lower, esp when the developer and the user have a direct connection (through a sales person / customer success rep). However, this raises a really interesting question towards the category of lighter-weight personal ads (i.e. "Promote this post"). I suspect that these are not well regulated and probably not equally enforced. I'd be interested in the comps here: Do Twitter / FB / LinkedIn all use the same purchase method when you promote a post? How about the dating apps when you promote your profile? Are those materially different?
  • dilse 6y ago
    What about purchased in Amazon app particularly Kindle purchases inside Amazon app?
    • fargo 6y ago
      it definitely does for audiobooks, hence you can't buy audiobooks through the app.
• Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  It is pretty clear that Apple is supposed to take money for functionality provided by an app. If you get benefit outside of it (like with Uber, physically transporing you), you may have your own processing service. It is also clear that if you can enable some functionality from outside the app, you can't link to non-Apple payment services from within the app nor you can't mention enhancements. If users somehow discover them on your website, it seems to be ok. However, with some types of apps the lines are more vague. Say, we have an email client, which works over IMAP, and can work with any email account. And suppose we provide free accounts and 1 GB of space for free, and 10 GB for $1. Naturally, when user gets to 80% of his quota, we'll send him an email, which will be displayed within an app and will link to our website suggesting do a non-Apple payment. Common sense says that this should be allowed, but I'd bet that apple moderators won't allow it.
  • fakedang 6y ago
    Can Apple actually stop developers from sending a payment email to end-users? Would that even be legal, especially if the web-client is a cross-platform solution available on PC, mobile, etc? That would be significant overreach, ripe for legal action, imo.
• jpollock 6y ago
  It's about the money flow. If the money flows from the User to the Developer, Apple wants a cut as a middleman. The argument is that the store owner brought the customer to the seller, so they should get a cut - and it shouldn't be possible for the seller to avoid that cut by selling direct. Ads have money flowing from the Advertiser -> Developer. Apple isn't involved in that relationship, and didn't bring the customer (the Advertiser) to the seller.
  • XCSme 6y ago
    > The argument is that the store owner brought the customer to the seller One problem is that Apple does not allow developers to bring customers directly. You always have to go through the Apple Store to install an app on iOS. So, even if you bring your own customers, you have to bring them through the iOS Store.
    • pbalau 6y ago
      The "store owner" in this case is Apple.
      • XCSme 6y ago
        Sorry, that was a typo, I meant developers.
  • robenkleene 6y ago
    That may be the argument, but the result is that managing the free apps by companies like Facebook and Google in the App Store are subsidized by taking that 30% from tiny outfits like OmniGroup and Panic, that make paid productivity apps. Responding to many of the arguments I read around on Twitter: I don’t see how anyone can use the word “fair” to describe this arrangement, no matter how many ways people compare it to a console like Nintendo.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • IshKebab 6y ago
• newbie578 6y ago
  This is a phenomenal question! I would love if someone could provide a concrete answer. I also tried to find out more about it, during the last year since I am making a mobile app which would also sell users the ability to buy ads just like Facebook does, and I spent DAYS trying to find any sort of information regarding it. There was none, no one speaks about it, like it is buried deep down, if you were to apply Apple's arbitary rules then you would expect that Facebook also pays the 30% mafia tax, but somehow I doubt it, since that amount would just be enormous. I'm honestly excited and curious to follow this thread and see what the results are going to be.
• kristianpaul 6y ago
  Does Facebook pay its user from the profit it mades from its data?
• gitpusher 6y ago
  Does Apple actually claim that its "rules are [en]forced evenly w/o exception", or is it merely implied by their (carefully crafted) public statements?
  • goodluckchuck 6y ago
    The importance isn’t that the rules aren’t enforced evenly / fairly, but that the rules are only enforced against small companies. Enforcing the rules against Facebook and Amazon would be competitive. Enforcing the rules only against companies that are too small to compete with Apple is anti-competitive. We don’t see a suit from Facebook/Amazon, because they are also beneficiaries of Apple’s illegal conduct. I wasn’t convinced until I saw this, but this is strong evidence for Epic’s case.
• spocklivelong 6y ago
  It does not get any revenue from Ads. That is the reason why iOS 14 is making it very hard for Apps to make any money outside of the going through the App store (30% cut). This is brilliant from Apple because, it hits 2 birds with 1 stone - Win for consumer from privacy standpoint, Win as a business since it forces a lot of apps to be converted to paid apps, which will flow more $$ to Apple.
• nwellnhof 6y ago
  Simple answer: Apple charges 30% of what their users pay in the app store. Facebook makes ad revenue from other unrelated parties. How could Apple even try to tax this?
  • asdfaoeu 6y ago
    > How could Apple even try to tax this? Have their own advertising platform which they take a 30% cut and ban any app that uses a competing platform the same way they do with IAP.
    • nwellnhof 6y ago
      But Apple allows ads from other platforms, so the answer to the question is obviously no.
• d0100 6y ago
  How does Apple differentiate sales from a browser-app and an app-app?
  • sjwright 6y ago
    The differentiation: was the app was acquired through the App Store?
    • d0100 6y ago
      What I mean is, wouldn't any transaction within a browser be "in-app"?
      • sjwright 6y ago
        Do you mean if I download Chrome for iOS and use it to purchase a Netflix subscription through their website? I’m quite sure Apple has a general purpose web browser exception for a number of store rules, though I don’t know if that is explicitly documented.
• polyomino 6y ago
  Apple's app ecosystem was built on privacy erosion. They should pay out reparations to users if they want to keep their own app store.
• madhadron 6y ago
  No.
• perryizgr8 6y ago
  No, because Facebook is a member of the Tres Commas club. Apple cannot bully them.
• ideamotor 6y ago
  Bingo bingo bingo. This is a major reason why the App Store’s rules are so insidious. What companies are we just not seeing because of this rule? This rule practically forces B2C software companies to have free ad-supported Apps. Pernicious and economy manipulating.
• tistoon 6y ago
  Bingo! A trillion dollars question :)
• thehappypm 6y ago
  Of course they don’t. Ads are distinctly different from direct commerce. Good luck computing 30% of the value of an ad or a product placement.
• z3t4 6y ago
  I wonder when Facebook and Google will stop shooting themselves. They are in the same boat as they are web 2.0. If they manage to kill the web Google and Facebook will die.
  • foepys 6y ago
    In some parts of the world Facebook is the internet for many. Facebook strategically made deals with ISPs to remove Facebook from datacaps and give priority access. In India Facebook even sold Facebook-only internet access through a large mobile provider until the Indian government stopped them for data neutrality reasons and rightfully so. [1] Look at the Facebook Zero project that is targeting many third-world countries, the disguised as charity to help those countries gain wide-spread internet access. [2] 1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-free-basics-developing-markets https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero
• cricalix 6y ago
  A related tangent - ever notice that if you go to make a donation to a fundraiser, the iOS app kicks you out to a web page? It would be a better experience if it was in-app, but I have to wonder if Apple consider that to be an in-app purchase...
• darkwater 6y ago
  Totally unrelated and a bit of trolling but, looking at his constant presence in this Apple Store twitter threads: is Miguel De Icaza trying to get a position at Apple? Back in the Gnome/Mono days he did almost the same with Microsoft and in the end he went there...
• baxtr 6y ago
  From what I understand: The in-app experience is not changed for me as a user. It doesn’t make my standard app a better app. An ad is consumed by other people on many other devices including browsers on a desktop. So I think it’s very reasonable it’s not handled like an in-app purchase. It’s more like a purchase of a physical item in the amazon app.
• afrojack123 6y ago
  Does Amazon pay Apple 30% fo revenue derived from sales made within its iOS app?
• plumX 6y ago
  Whenever I recharge my PokerStars account from inside the app, Apple also doesn't take 30%, does it? It would be a massive loss for the gaming company, I'm sure there's a deal worked out in that case too. And I'm pretty sure a non-disclosure agreement is in place in both of these cases.
• joking 6y ago
  I'm curious that in all these conversations Miguel de Icaza made an appearance, and even more curious on how it's on the side of apple, it almost seem that he is on the apple payroll! Not that I have anything wrong with that, but for a long time open source evangelist and currently working for microsoft, it seems notable.
• mythz 6y ago
  "Free with advertising" is tenet of Apple's App Store policy, i.e. Royalty Free for everyone: https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/ https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/
• baybal2 6y ago
  Tencent has famously strongarmed Apple into waving fees, and Apple Pay requirement for them under a threat that they will pull Wechat from the App Store
• javieranton 6y ago
  I want to thank Apple for offering me free marketing with its app store. But then I submit an update, and surely they come with some far fetched reasoning requiring me to change my app. The latest one, I had to remove the following question from FAQs :"Does this app work on Android and iOS? Yes". That's it, can't even mention Android. I consider this too much. It would make sense if Apple had developed MY app, but they haven't. I have put into it several man months and now they get to dictate what I can say in the app. We need an apps strike
• coryfklein 6y ago
  Everyone clamoring "ads don't improve the in-app experience" are looking at the wrong user. Obviously Apple has no grounds to charge Facebook when a user sees an ad and/or clicks on it. Instead you need to look at the person spending the money, which is the marketer. Facebook clearly saw an opportunity to improve marketers' experiences in the app by allowing them to make ad buys from within the app. A marketer could certainly log on to their desktop and create an ad buy there, but their experience on the Facebook app is improved by being able to buy ads while on the couch or travelling. Facebook is improving their in-app experience by offering something for sale in the app. How does that not warrant a 30% cut to Apple?