3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

piyush_soni 4y ago
I've bought "digital gold" quite a few times from apps (in India). So they could demand 30% out of that as well? Apple's greed is now getting to ridiculous levels.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Again, 30% is market rate across the board. You can find analysis on what a quality marketplace trusted by users costs, it's much more than people think. And the benefit to an app of being in a trusted market is high. In the US, public companies have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders to earn. It's unclear to me why Apple should keep money out of the pockets of teachers and firemen invested in them through pension funds, just to charge below market rates for the most trusted marketplace where devs make (by far) the most money.
Terretta 4y ago
> at'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". Whole point is that is not objective, it's subjective, and FB is in the minority for considering it true. It's bad reporting by Verge to report it so, but good for their clicks and controversy. There's no story otherwise. The Verge sentence is the untrue statement, if the position is that a user boosting the user's reach is a service, not an ad. It never occurred to me that tapping to give my post more visibility was an ad, but rather distribution or shelf space. Goods in a grocery store, brands can pay for shelf space. If you see one mayo placed at eye level, vs. one by the floor, is that an ad? I'd argue it is not. The thing in the TV or magazine or back of your receipt is an ad. Similarly the "pay for play" radio payola scandal was not considered ads, it was considered unfair/deceptive/monopolistic, but not ads. Apple is doing none of the things Verge tossed out as clickbait, or you allege as bad faith. After pressing FB to behave, for a while, they eventually closed a loophole. This happens in business contracts routinely. This is why almost all legalese is a Chesterton's Fence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...

piyush_soni 4y ago

I've bought "digital gold" quite a few times from apps (in India). So they could demand 30% out of that as well? Apple's greed is now getting to ridiculous levels.

Terretta 4y ago
Again, 30% is market rate across the board. You can find analysis on what a quality marketplace trusted by users costs, it's much more than people think. And the benefit to an app of being in a trusted market is high. In the US, public companies have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders to earn. It's unclear to me why Apple should keep money out of the pockets of teachers and firemen invested in them through pension funds, just to charge below market rates for the most trusted marketplace where devs make (by far) the most money.

Terretta 4y ago

> at'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". Whole point is that is not objective, it's subjective, and FB is in the minority for considering it true. It's bad reporting by Verge to report it so, but good for their clicks and controversy. There's no story otherwise. The Verge sentence is the untrue statement, if the position is that a user boosting the user's reach is a service, not an ad. It never occurred to me that tapping to give my post more visibility was an ad, but rather distribution or shelf space. Goods in a grocery store, brands can pay for shelf space. If you see one mayo placed at eye level, vs. one by the floor, is that an ad? I'd argue it is not. The thing in the TV or magazine or back of your receipt is an ad. Similarly the "pay for play" radio payola scandal was not considered ads, it was considered unfair/deceptive/monopolistic, but not ads. Apple is doing none of the things Verge tossed out as clickbait, or you allege as bad faith. After pressing FB to behave, for a while, they eventually closed a loophole. This happens in business contracts routinely. This is why almost all legalese is a Chesterton's Fence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...