16 ms·

Apple’s new App Store tax on ads is a direct shot at Meta

156 points by quyleanh 4y ago

tomger 4y ago
Iirc apple requires tax for all digital goods. If Spotify subs are taxed then Facebook boosts should be too?
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I don’t like a digital tax but am also upset that the big companies are so often given a pass.
bovermyer 4y ago
There are easy alternatives to boosting "posts" (ads) in an app - use the web interface. Granted, I don't know if this is an option for Instagram. On the other hand, I don't see why Apple would do this other than to specifically harm Meta. It seems like a strange thing to tax.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  They apply in-app purchase rules to other, non-ad, digital goods, right? In that light, applying IAP to this type of digital good seems like what I'd expect Apple to want to do.
- bkishan 4y ago
  > I don't see why Apple would do this other than to specifically harm Meta. The policy applies to every social media platform with an app on iOS. Sure it costs the big players more, but if Meta were Apple I have no doubt they'd do the same, if not worse. Also the article specifically states "the new policy shouldn’t have a material impact on the company’s revenue" as this only applies applies to the social media app itself, and not the ads manager app where advertises spend the big bucks.
  - seydor 4y ago
    facebook tried their FB credits thing for a while and then ditched it, and generally developers can still use their platform with few restrictions , no $100 / year and 30% tax. The biggest annoyance was the trump era where they enacted a bunch of puritan measures in response to criticism from the press. FB gives their platform for free to devs, very unlike apple
- bee_rider 4y ago
  It seems like the same fee they apply to every other digital purchase. What's strange about it?
- seydor 4y ago
  It seems such a non-brainer to me that facebook should have ditched the app versions and go web-only. The app experience will barely be different, apart from notifications. But given the users' addiction to fb&IG, doesn't seem like a huge loss ... at least from a distance
reustle 4y ago
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?
- Cupprum 4y ago
  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.
  - three_seagrass 4y ago
    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 only affects EU users though.
    - supermatt 4y ago
      From May 2023.
- simion314 4y ago
  > 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.
- zamalek 4y ago
  Yeah. As much as I prefer the ethics of Apple to Facebook, and as much as I would like Facebook to go away, this isn't good behavior from Apple.
- rhema 4y ago
  They do have the Oculus store. It's not a competitor yet, but may be in 10 years.
weberer 4y ago
> Meta, which has already lost over $10 billion in ad revenue due to the iPhone’s ad tracking prompt. Jesus, ads really have gone out of control.
ftyhbhyjnjk 4y ago
Apple being Apple here... a greedy corpo shit
- Terretta 4y ago
  While Meta's the Cyberpunk 2077 Street Kid we've been waiting for? For the longest time, Zuck wouldn't even let you have legs.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    When corporations fight, are we, the little guys, the likely winner? I don’t know the answer, just asking out loud. I hope so (in which case, pass the popcorn).
  - MikusR 4y ago
    So your VR app had properly working legs without additional external trackers?
LeanderK 4y ago
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.
- Terretta 4y ago
  > how far will they take it 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-privacy-fight-11660317376 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.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > Apple's been consistent: digital goods and services. Transferring money between banks accounts via an app seems like a digital service. How is it not?
    - deleted 4y ago
enos_feedler 4y ago
“ It’s the first time Apple has directly taxed advertising in iOS apps.” This might not be the first time they are taxing boosts, just being fair about it across apps. I am pretty sure Tinder uses in app purchases for buying it’s boost feature. And isn’t Tinder just an ad platform for the user themself? EDIT; Would appreciate feedback in thread rather than downvotes here. Genuinely thinking this isn’t a big deal and an enforcement of existing rules. Am I wrong? I am not sure what is stronger here, the love for apple or the love for hating on them.
- Terretta 4y ago
  You're correct, others like TikTok and Twitter and dating apps correctly consider a user asking to show their post or profile to more people a digital service, and use IAP per the contract with Apple. FB/Insta were claiming it's an ad so they could disregard. Since FB wouldn't resolve, Apple closed the loophole.
- pentae 4y ago
  I'd hazard a guess it's because of people disagreeing with your analogy. Even though it's cute, tinder boosts and advertising are generally not considered to be the same product or use case
  - weberer 4y ago
    How is it not an ad? You're paying to be exposed to more people.
    - enos_feedler 4y ago
      Precisely. I really don’t see the different between an ad which is just sponsored content and a boosted tinder profile where the additional reach it created is effectively sponsored content. I get that it is not really an ad. But my point is that its tricky to define IAP conditions.
relaxatorium 4y ago
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.
- klabb3 4y ago
  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.
dangus 4y ago
It’s interesting how TikTok and Twitter don’t have the same complaint, apparently. They already use in-app purchases for this functionality. So it really is just Meta complaining. Zuck, I thought the Metaverse is the future? We won’t even need phones soon, why does this matter? Phones are in the legacy pancake reality, soon to be deprecated. We’ll all be on your Oculus – sorry, Meta App Store. Bad jokes aside, I don’t trust either Meta or Apple to give us a straight story on this issue. My gut feeling is that these “boosts” are pure profit with zero COGS and Facebook should do perfectly fine giving Apple their share of the spoils. The App Store should be regulated but we’ll never get that with our political system.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  > The difference for Facebook and Instagram is that they currently don’t use Apple’s in-app purchase system for boosting posts while Twitter, TikTok, and others do. I’m told that, several years ago, Apple pressured Facebook to start routing these boosted post payments through the App Store and Facebook resisted.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  Today it's Meta, tomorrow it's your business model. Not sure this is the future of computing I want.
  - dangus 4y ago
    I don’t want it either, to be clear. But I also don’t sympathize with Meta’s whining.
endisneigh 4y ago
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.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  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.
  - rapind 4y ago
    You should ask Reddit. They really really want you to use their app instead of your browser, so there’s obviously something (like tracking).
    - alangibson 4y ago
      IMHO it comes down to push notifications. If you install the app then they can proactively annoy ... sorry ... engage you.
      - stevewatson301 4y ago
        Web browsers can do push notifications too, albeit they have to ask for consent first.
        Shish2k 4y ago
        Not on iOS they can’t - iOS _requires_ developers to go through all the hassle, fees, and taxes of creating an App-Store App if they want to use what every other platform considers a “standard web browser feature"
civilized 4y ago
I'm not a friend or fan of Meta, but I'm astonished at the chutzpah of this move. Reaching into an app and taxing transactions between the developer and the user that have nothing to do with the App Store. We are once again in the days of robber barons. Apple must be brought to heel.
- Shish2k 4y ago
  > I'm astonished at the chutzpah of this move. Reaching into an app and taxing transactions between the developer and the user that have nothing to do with the App Store. This isn’t really new, Apple have been doing this with nearly all transactions since forever; now they’re simply updating “nearly all transactions” to “all transactions”, closing a loophole which previously allowed Meta and their users to transact in private.
somehnacct3757 4y ago
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.
bee_rider 4y ago
> Based on my conversations with Meta employees, the new policy shouldn’t have a material impact on the company’s revenue. But there is concern about the precedent set and that Apple will eventually require the same rule for Meta’s standalone ads manager app. Thanks to Apple’s current logic, that app is currently exempt from having to use in-app purchases for boosts because the ads that are bought aren’t displayed in the app itself. Article title got my hopes up, but this looks more like an indirect shot, or maybe setting up to do some damage later. Fingers crossed! We can do anti-trust at Apple after they've successfully done the world a favor and killed off Facebook.
moneywoes 4y ago
I presume the real lesson here is always own the ecosystem to win
klabb3 4y ago
Apple has become the parent/older brother who makes up entirely arbitrary rules whenever they feel like it (ie is beneficial to them). They had a long standing exception for ads not requiring in-app purchases (for some weird reason), but now they're drawing a line in the sand randomly. We've had app stores now, and the world isn't better off. In perfect irony, apps are the new Flash, and as long as there is 0 standardization, openness or even a sliver of interop, we're just treading water. I wish regulators in some significant jurisdiction hit them all with a hammer, setting ground rules for side loading and a meaningful opt out for end users (that didn't simultaneously cripple their devices).
maratc 4y ago
A platform extracting 50% in "platform fees"[0] complains about a platform extracting 30% in "platform fees". [0]: https://www.macrumors.com/2022/04/13/meta-cut-on-purchases-despite-apple-complaints/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/04/13/meta-cut-on-purchases-d...
_chu1 4y ago
I hope Apple comes out king in this and if Meta tries to resist they zap them off the App Store, that would be so funny
seydor 4y ago
I wonder if there is a point at which facebook pulls their apps from the app store But more seriously i m concerned that tech now openly considers that end users are junkies to be taxed (via a Value Added Tax no less) for their junkiness I feel sorry for every developer who is trapped in the App stores, but not for facebook
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Apple’s green bubble strategy worked for iMessage, now almost 90% of teens have an iPhone: https://www.howtogeek.com/778355/new-study-says-87-of-us-teens-have-an-iphone/ https://www.howtogeek.com/778355/new-study-says-87-of-us-tee... 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?
- seydor 4y ago
  notably this is US only
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    True, but it’s a valuable market, and Apple is most easily regulated from its own country if the U.S. decides the monopoly is causing market issues.
    - seydor 4y ago
      Also, i consider that the US is strategically interested to maintain the semi-monopolies of Google / MS / Facebook because of their worldwide influence. But apple being a predominantly american monopoly, is more likely to draw antitrust litigation.
- Spivak 4y ago
  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.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
If you think Apple wont spend the next 5 years trying to bring this reality to applications running on their (currently) MacOS devices you're an idealist who's in for a rude awakening.
- lapcat 4y ago
  The Mac App Store doesn't even have Search Ads. Not out of any difference in principle but just because the Mac App Store doesn't have enough traffic to justify it. A lot of things that are apps on iOS are simply web sites on macOS.
  - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
    > just because the Mac App Store doesn't have enough traffic to justify it. Yeah ok now you're an executive at Apple and you're tasked with fixing that issue, what do you do? Assuming your bonus is at stake here and you're not a HN reader who has a fundamental affinity to the concept of a "Computer" not a "Device"
    - lapcat 4y ago
      Well, Apple has already tried Universal Purchase, Catalyst, and iOS apps on Apple silicon, but none of that has moved the needle.
      - hda2 4y ago
        Slowly degrade, cripple, and eventually remove untaxed options like they have been doing with app authentication/gatekeeper. Problem solved.
        lapcat 4y ago
        Not really, because many Mac apps can't even work with mandatory App Store sandboxing, so the apps would simply cease to exist rather than moving to the App Store.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Apple using dominance in hardware to harvest money from software that made the hardware worth buying.
seydor 4y ago
another question, how does this work for europe for taxes? will apple pay tax in ireland for the 30% cut they get from fb?
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  It’s usa only.
stephc_int13 4y ago
Apple has become a company managed by greedy and risk-averse accountants (oxymoron?). This should not be surprising. I am glad that Meta is not treated by Apple with a "special deal" as many big companies do and as they did in the past. I am pretty sure the lobbying is intense, hidden from public debate, I don't think we'll see the end of it this decade.
- shubb 4y ago
  Given the timing, I think this is about propping up their forward guidance at tomorrows earnings...
hexis 4y ago
It’s long past time to abandon Apple products. I’m as guilty as anyone, typing this out on an iPad. But I’m also using a system76 laptop in parallel to my MacBook Pro and slowly moving more of my computer time to it. The truth about Apple, and probably any other company that managed to get in its amazing situation, is that they want the whole pie. They’ll always burn partners, customers, and rivals to slowly (or quickly) boil the frog and consume the whole pie. It’s been clear for a long time, but their devices are so great that we’re all in denial. They’re a bad actor, we have to move forward and figure out the next steps for ourselves.
- system16 4y ago
  Is there any company in the same hardware space you'd consider a good actor? Or even less bad than Apple?
  - hexis 4y ago
    System76 seems terrific. But, overall, Apple is alone is having the market power and deep integration between software, hardware, and services to radiate abuse. So, pretty much every other company has the potential to be better.
  - HenriTEL 4y ago
    Not sure if we can say it's the same hardware space but I'm happy with my framework laptop. They designed it from ground up to be repairable and upgradable.
  - init2null 4y ago
    I think the competition is Microsoft and Google (not so much Lenovo, Asus, Dell, Acer, Samsung...) and Apple does well against both if privacy is a major consideration. Microsoft's direction over 10 and 11 have been unsettling.
- Deegy 4y ago
  Show me a laptop touchpad better than apple's and I will at least consider switching.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
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.
- Spivak 4y ago
  > 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.
  - jbigelow76 4y ago
    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.
- reustle 4y ago
  > as google knew they were not going to be allowed to get an html version working Xbox cloud streaming seems to work just fine?
- CharlesW 4y ago
  > 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.
jliptzin 4y ago
As an app developer on Facebook a lifetime ago I remember when they forced me to give up 30% of my in-app revenue to them even though I was already buying Facebook ads to promote the game…that’s pretty much when I gave up on trying to build a business on top of someone else’s, I have no sympathy here for Facebook
Raed667 4y ago
Who uses a mobile app to manage (and pay for) their social-media strategy?
- sangnoir 4y ago
  Small businesses.
whywhywhydude 4y ago
I am just wondering what makes the most profitable and biggest company in the world to be so greedy. Why do they try to juice every last cent out of everything possible? Is it driven by MBAs like Tim Cook who value money above everything else?
- mrkstu 4y ago
  How exactly do you think a company becomes the biggest most profitable in the world?
_23sd 4y ago
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".
- CharlesW 4y ago
  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". https://socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/debate-is-facebook-blackmailing-brands/ https://socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/debat...
  - whoisjuan 4y ago
    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.
  - barbariangrunge 4y ago
    That is advertising, it’s just unlabelled
  - 4y ago
rchaud 4y ago
> On Monday, Apple quietly updated its App Store rules to require that iOS developers use in-app purchases — and thereby give Apple 30 percent — on “sales of ‘boosts’ for posts in a social media app. This was always the end game for any walled garden, a toll booth at every street and intersection. Just desserts for FB for choosing the walled garden over the open web. BTW, Instagram's TT-aping new design is largely invisible on its mobile web version.
gdsdfe 4y ago
You got to give it to Google, all these issues Facebook is having with Apple right now, google saw like a mile away and that's probably the main reason they created android.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
6510 4y ago
This is what it feels like to be locked into a platform. Should have build their own phone in stead of this VR nonsense.
0x445442 4y ago
Not a day goes by where I don’t miss my Blackberry.

156 points by quyleanh 4y ago

tomger 4y ago

Iirc apple requires tax for all digital goods. If Spotify subs are taxed then Facebook boosts should be too?

JKCalhoun 4y ago
I don’t like a digital tax but am also upset that the big companies are so often given a pass.

bovermyer 4y ago

There are easy alternatives to boosting "posts" (ads) in an app - use the web interface. Granted, I don't know if this is an option for Instagram. On the other hand, I don't see why Apple would do this other than to specifically harm Meta. It seems like a strange thing to tax.

sokoloff 4y ago
They apply in-app purchase rules to other, non-ad, digital goods, right? In that light, applying IAP to this type of digital good seems like what I'd expect Apple to want to do.
bkishan 4y ago
> I don't see why Apple would do this other than to specifically harm Meta. The policy applies to every social media platform with an app on iOS. Sure it costs the big players more, but if Meta were Apple I have no doubt they'd do the same, if not worse. Also the article specifically states "the new policy shouldn’t have a material impact on the company’s revenue" as this only applies applies to the social media app itself, and not the ads manager app where advertises spend the big bucks.
- seydor 4y ago
  facebook tried their FB credits thing for a while and then ditched it, and generally developers can still use their platform with few restrictions , no $100 / year and 30% tax. The biggest annoyance was the trump era where they enacted a bunch of puritan measures in response to criticism from the press. FB gives their platform for free to devs, very unlike apple
bee_rider 4y ago
It seems like the same fee they apply to every other digital purchase. What's strange about it?
seydor 4y ago
It seems such a non-brainer to me that facebook should have ditched the app versions and go web-only. The app experience will barely be different, apart from notifications. But given the users' addiction to fb&IG, doesn't seem like a huge loss ... at least from a distance

reustle 4y ago

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?

Cupprum 4y ago
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.
- three_seagrass 4y ago
  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 only affects EU users though.
  - supermatt 4y ago
    From May 2023.
simion314 4y ago
> 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.
zamalek 4y ago
Yeah. As much as I prefer the ethics of Apple to Facebook, and as much as I would like Facebook to go away, this isn't good behavior from Apple.
rhema 4y ago
They do have the Oculus store. It's not a competitor yet, but may be in 10 years.

weberer 4y ago

> Meta, which has already lost over $10 billion in ad revenue due to the iPhone’s ad tracking prompt. Jesus, ads really have gone out of control.

ftyhbhyjnjk 4y ago

Apple being Apple here... a greedy corpo shit

Terretta 4y ago
While Meta's the Cyberpunk 2077 Street Kid we've been waiting for? For the longest time, Zuck wouldn't even let you have legs.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  When corporations fight, are we, the little guys, the likely winner? I don’t know the answer, just asking out loud. I hope so (in which case, pass the popcorn).
- MikusR 4y ago
  So your VR app had properly working legs without additional external trackers?

LeanderK 4y ago

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.

Terretta 4y ago
> how far will they take it 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-privacy-fight-11660317376 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.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > Apple's been consistent: digital goods and services. Transferring money between banks accounts via an app seems like a digital service. How is it not?
  - deleted 4y ago

enos_feedler 4y ago

“ It’s the first time Apple has directly taxed advertising in iOS apps.” This might not be the first time they are taxing boosts, just being fair about it across apps. I am pretty sure Tinder uses in app purchases for buying it’s boost feature. And isn’t Tinder just an ad platform for the user themself? EDIT; Would appreciate feedback in thread rather than downvotes here. Genuinely thinking this isn’t a big deal and an enforcement of existing rules. Am I wrong? I am not sure what is stronger here, the love for apple or the love for hating on them.

Terretta 4y ago
You're correct, others like TikTok and Twitter and dating apps correctly consider a user asking to show their post or profile to more people a digital service, and use IAP per the contract with Apple. FB/Insta were claiming it's an ad so they could disregard. Since FB wouldn't resolve, Apple closed the loophole.
pentae 4y ago
I'd hazard a guess it's because of people disagreeing with your analogy. Even though it's cute, tinder boosts and advertising are generally not considered to be the same product or use case
- weberer 4y ago
  How is it not an ad? You're paying to be exposed to more people.
  - enos_feedler 4y ago
    Precisely. I really don’t see the different between an ad which is just sponsored content and a boosted tinder profile where the additional reach it created is effectively sponsored content. I get that it is not really an ad. But my point is that its tricky to define IAP conditions.

relaxatorium 4y ago

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.

klabb3 4y ago
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.

dangus 4y ago

It’s interesting how TikTok and Twitter don’t have the same complaint, apparently. They already use in-app purchases for this functionality. So it really is just Meta complaining. Zuck, I thought the Metaverse is the future? We won’t even need phones soon, why does this matter? Phones are in the legacy pancake reality, soon to be deprecated. We’ll all be on your Oculus – sorry, Meta App Store. Bad jokes aside, I don’t trust either Meta or Apple to give us a straight story on this issue. My gut feeling is that these “boosts” are pure profit with zero COGS and Facebook should do perfectly fine giving Apple their share of the spoils. The App Store should be regulated but we’ll never get that with our political system.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> The difference for Facebook and Instagram is that they currently don’t use Apple’s in-app purchase system for boosting posts while Twitter, TikTok, and others do. I’m told that, several years ago, Apple pressured Facebook to start routing these boosted post payments through the App Store and Facebook resisted.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
Today it's Meta, tomorrow it's your business model. Not sure this is the future of computing I want.
- dangus 4y ago
  I don’t want it either, to be clear. But I also don’t sympathize with Meta’s whining.

endisneigh 4y ago

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.

chrisseaton 4y ago
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.
- rapind 4y ago
  You should ask Reddit. They really really want you to use their app instead of your browser, so there’s obviously something (like tracking).
  - alangibson 4y ago
    IMHO it comes down to push notifications. If you install the app then they can proactively annoy ... sorry ... engage you.
    - stevewatson301 4y ago
      Web browsers can do push notifications too, albeit they have to ask for consent first.
      - Shish2k 4y ago
        Not on iOS they can’t - iOS _requires_ developers to go through all the hassle, fees, and taxes of creating an App-Store App if they want to use what every other platform considers a “standard web browser feature"

civilized 4y ago

I'm not a friend or fan of Meta, but I'm astonished at the chutzpah of this move. Reaching into an app and taxing transactions between the developer and the user that have nothing to do with the App Store. We are once again in the days of robber barons. Apple must be brought to heel.

Shish2k 4y ago
> I'm astonished at the chutzpah of this move. Reaching into an app and taxing transactions between the developer and the user that have nothing to do with the App Store. This isn’t really new, Apple have been doing this with nearly all transactions since forever; now they’re simply updating “nearly all transactions” to “all transactions”, closing a loophole which previously allowed Meta and their users to transact in private.

somehnacct3757 4y ago

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.

bee_rider 4y ago

> Based on my conversations with Meta employees, the new policy shouldn’t have a material impact on the company’s revenue. But there is concern about the precedent set and that Apple will eventually require the same rule for Meta’s standalone ads manager app. Thanks to Apple’s current logic, that app is currently exempt from having to use in-app purchases for boosts because the ads that are bought aren’t displayed in the app itself. Article title got my hopes up, but this looks more like an indirect shot, or maybe setting up to do some damage later. Fingers crossed! We can do anti-trust at Apple after they've successfully done the world a favor and killed off Facebook.

moneywoes 4y ago

I presume the real lesson here is always own the ecosystem to win

klabb3 4y ago

Apple has become the parent/older brother who makes up entirely arbitrary rules whenever they feel like it (ie is beneficial to them). They had a long standing exception for ads not requiring in-app purchases (for some weird reason), but now they're drawing a line in the sand randomly. We've had app stores now, and the world isn't better off. In perfect irony, apps are the new Flash, and as long as there is 0 standardization, openness or even a sliver of interop, we're just treading water. I wish regulators in some significant jurisdiction hit them all with a hammer, setting ground rules for side loading and a meaningful opt out for end users (that didn't simultaneously cripple their devices).

maratc 4y ago

A platform extracting 50% in "platform fees"[0] complains about a platform extracting 30% in "platform fees". [0]: https://www.macrumors.com/2022/04/13/meta-cut-on-purchases-despite-apple-complaints/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/04/13/meta-cut-on-purchases-d...

_chu1 4y ago

I hope Apple comes out king in this and if Meta tries to resist they zap them off the App Store, that would be so funny

seydor 4y ago

I wonder if there is a point at which facebook pulls their apps from the app store But more seriously i m concerned that tech now openly considers that end users are junkies to be taxed (via a Value Added Tax no less) for their junkiness I feel sorry for every developer who is trapped in the App stores, but not for facebook

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Apple’s green bubble strategy worked for iMessage, now almost 90% of teens have an iPhone: https://www.howtogeek.com/778355/new-study-says-87-of-us-teens-have-an-iphone/ https://www.howtogeek.com/778355/new-study-says-87-of-us-tee... 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?

seydor 4y ago
notably this is US only
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  True, but it’s a valuable market, and Apple is most easily regulated from its own country if the U.S. decides the monopoly is causing market issues.
  - seydor 4y ago
    Also, i consider that the US is strategically interested to maintain the semi-monopolies of Google / MS / Facebook because of their worldwide influence. But apple being a predominantly american monopoly, is more likely to draw antitrust litigation.
Spivak 4y ago
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.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

If you think Apple wont spend the next 5 years trying to bring this reality to applications running on their (currently) MacOS devices you're an idealist who's in for a rude awakening.

lapcat 4y ago
The Mac App Store doesn't even have Search Ads. Not out of any difference in principle but just because the Mac App Store doesn't have enough traffic to justify it. A lot of things that are apps on iOS are simply web sites on macOS.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  > just because the Mac App Store doesn't have enough traffic to justify it. Yeah ok now you're an executive at Apple and you're tasked with fixing that issue, what do you do? Assuming your bonus is at stake here and you're not a HN reader who has a fundamental affinity to the concept of a "Computer" not a "Device"
  - lapcat 4y ago
    Well, Apple has already tried Universal Purchase, Catalyst, and iOS apps on Apple silicon, but none of that has moved the needle.
    - hda2 4y ago
      Slowly degrade, cripple, and eventually remove untaxed options like they have been doing with app authentication/gatekeeper. Problem solved.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        Not really, because many Mac apps can't even work with mandatory App Store sandboxing, so the apps would simply cease to exist rather than moving to the App Store.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Apple using dominance in hardware to harvest money from software that made the hardware worth buying.

seydor 4y ago

another question, how does this work for europe for taxes? will apple pay tax in ireland for the 30% cut they get from fb?

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
It’s usa only.

stephc_int13 4y ago

Apple has become a company managed by greedy and risk-averse accountants (oxymoron?). This should not be surprising. I am glad that Meta is not treated by Apple with a "special deal" as many big companies do and as they did in the past. I am pretty sure the lobbying is intense, hidden from public debate, I don't think we'll see the end of it this decade.

shubb 4y ago
Given the timing, I think this is about propping up their forward guidance at tomorrows earnings...

hexis 4y ago

It’s long past time to abandon Apple products. I’m as guilty as anyone, typing this out on an iPad. But I’m also using a system76 laptop in parallel to my MacBook Pro and slowly moving more of my computer time to it. The truth about Apple, and probably any other company that managed to get in its amazing situation, is that they want the whole pie. They’ll always burn partners, customers, and rivals to slowly (or quickly) boil the frog and consume the whole pie. It’s been clear for a long time, but their devices are so great that we’re all in denial. They’re a bad actor, we have to move forward and figure out the next steps for ourselves.

system16 4y ago
Is there any company in the same hardware space you'd consider a good actor? Or even less bad than Apple?
- hexis 4y ago
  System76 seems terrific. But, overall, Apple is alone is having the market power and deep integration between software, hardware, and services to radiate abuse. So, pretty much every other company has the potential to be better.
- HenriTEL 4y ago
  Not sure if we can say it's the same hardware space but I'm happy with my framework laptop. They designed it from ground up to be repairable and upgradable.
- init2null 4y ago
  I think the competition is Microsoft and Google (not so much Lenovo, Asus, Dell, Acer, Samsung...) and Apple does well against both if privacy is a major consideration. Microsoft's direction over 10 and 11 have been unsettling.
Deegy 4y ago
Show me a laptop touchpad better than apple's and I will at least consider switching.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

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.

Spivak 4y ago
> 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.
- jbigelow76 4y ago
  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.
reustle 4y ago
> as google knew they were not going to be allowed to get an html version working Xbox cloud streaming seems to work just fine?
CharlesW 4y ago
> 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.

jliptzin 4y ago

As an app developer on Facebook a lifetime ago I remember when they forced me to give up 30% of my in-app revenue to them even though I was already buying Facebook ads to promote the game…that’s pretty much when I gave up on trying to build a business on top of someone else’s, I have no sympathy here for Facebook

Raed667 4y ago

Who uses a mobile app to manage (and pay for) their social-media strategy?

sangnoir 4y ago
Small businesses.

whywhywhydude 4y ago

I am just wondering what makes the most profitable and biggest company in the world to be so greedy. Why do they try to juice every last cent out of everything possible? Is it driven by MBAs like Tim Cook who value money above everything else?

mrkstu 4y ago
How exactly do you think a company becomes the biggest most profitable in the world?

_23sd 4y ago

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".

CharlesW 4y ago
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". https://socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/debate-is-facebook-blackmailing-brands/ https://socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/debat...
- whoisjuan 4y ago
  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.
- barbariangrunge 4y ago
  That is advertising, it’s just unlabelled
- 4y ago

rchaud 4y ago

> On Monday, Apple quietly updated its App Store rules to require that iOS developers use in-app purchases — and thereby give Apple 30 percent — on “sales of ‘boosts’ for posts in a social media app. This was always the end game for any walled garden, a toll booth at every street and intersection. Just desserts for FB for choosing the walled garden over the open web. BTW, Instagram's TT-aping new design is largely invisible on its mobile web version.

gdsdfe 4y ago

You got to give it to Google, all these issues Facebook is having with Apple right now, google saw like a mile away and that's probably the main reason they created android.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

6510 4y ago

This is what it feels like to be locked into a platform. Should have build their own phone in stead of this VR nonsense.

0x445442 4y ago

Not a day goes by where I don’t miss my Blackberry.