4 ms·

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 th

by _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
- elguyosupremo 4y ago
  A boost takes a regular post and turns it into an ad.
- _23sd 4y ago
  How is a boosted post not a type of ad campaign? It's paying for placement of your advertising. Whether Facebook is being fair to businesses is irrelevant. If it was about the practice being too immoral to allow in the app store they could ban Facebook from showing boosted posts in the feed on their app, but instead Apple is just trying to enforce the use of IAPs to buy them.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  I don't understand how you can say ads aren't affected and then in the next sentence say this only affects certain types of ads.
saveferris 4y ago
I agree about the over reach part. I am not an Apple apologist at all and agree with others that when device growth stalls (it will) and then services growth stalls (it will) Apple when then really start its ads push and a further push into getting it's 30% tribute on all app purchases. But, This isn't yet a stretch into all ad spend - I do think Apple will go there too eventually. In practice Apple is saying paying to boost an organic post is in effect an "in app purchase". They are correct. The purchase happens in the Facebook "blue" app. I actually haven't seen or done it with a boosted post but that is what Apple is saying. You post something via the Facebook "blue" app...get a notice that it's been seen by a few people, so pay a bit to get it seen by more and all of that is done via that one app....so an "in app purchse". Regular ads are done with the Ads Manager app....a separate app from the Facebook "blue" app. So, ads themselves are not yet subject to this 30% bounty. Again I haven't done it on the app but in the web ads manager you can boost a post from there too so likely you can in the Ads Manager app...not sure though. If you can then you avoid the 30%. I suspect most if not all small businesses, etc have no idea what Ads Manager is or are not very familiar with it. I have a particular disdain for the app store generally so I don't like this at all. But, you can see where Apple has been and will go...force everything to an app instead of mobile web browser (by nerfing webkit on iOS) than force 30% tribute on "purchases". I have no idea how this escapes any anti trust scrutiny, especially compared to what M$FT did with IE back in the day and got dinged for it.
- _23sd 4y ago
  > You post something via the Facebook "blue" app...get a notice that it's been seen by a few people, so pay a bit to get it seen by more and all of that is done via that one app....so an "in app purchse". I just don't see how this is something other than a simplified way of buying an ad, like in the Ads Manager. Sure, there are influencers and wannabe-influencers who pay to boost their posts for clout or something, that doesn't change the fact that this has a real business application. And for that use, it seems like Apple is modifying the status quo by taking something that used to not be an IAP (buying an ad) and deciding that you can't have a new way of buying one without using the IAP system. Maybe it was actually about whether it's all in one app or not rather than the nature of the purchase. But I don't think that describes the status quo of how these rules work, wouldn't the logical extreme be that you should be able to buy Kindle books in the Amazon Shopping app?

by _23sd 4y ago

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
elguyosupremo 4y ago
A boost takes a regular post and turns it into an ad.
_23sd 4y ago
How is a boosted post not a type of ad campaign? It's paying for placement of your advertising. Whether Facebook is being fair to businesses is irrelevant. If it was about the practice being too immoral to allow in the app store they could ban Facebook from showing boosted posts in the feed on their app, but instead Apple is just trying to enforce the use of IAPs to buy them.
colinmhayes 4y ago
I don't understand how you can say ads aren't affected and then in the next sentence say this only affects certain types of ads.

saveferris 4y ago

I agree about the over reach part. I am not an Apple apologist at all and agree with others that when device growth stalls (it will) and then services growth stalls (it will) Apple when then really start its ads push and a further push into getting it's 30% tribute on all app purchases. But, This isn't yet a stretch into all ad spend - I do think Apple will go there too eventually. In practice Apple is saying paying to boost an organic post is in effect an "in app purchase". They are correct. The purchase happens in the Facebook "blue" app. I actually haven't seen or done it with a boosted post but that is what Apple is saying. You post something via the Facebook "blue" app...get a notice that it's been seen by a few people, so pay a bit to get it seen by more and all of that is done via that one app....so an "in app purchse". Regular ads are done with the Ads Manager app....a separate app from the Facebook "blue" app. So, ads themselves are not yet subject to this 30% bounty. Again I haven't done it on the app but in the web ads manager you can boost a post from there too so likely you can in the Ads Manager app...not sure though. If you can then you avoid the 30%. I suspect most if not all small businesses, etc have no idea what Ads Manager is or are not very familiar with it. I have a particular disdain for the app store generally so I don't like this at all. But, you can see where Apple has been and will go...force everything to an app instead of mobile web browser (by nerfing webkit on iOS) than force 30% tribute on "purchases". I have no idea how this escapes any anti trust scrutiny, especially compared to what M$FT did with IE back in the day and got dinged for it.

_23sd 4y ago
> You post something via the Facebook "blue" app...get a notice that it's been seen by a few people, so pay a bit to get it seen by more and all of that is done via that one app....so an "in app purchse". I just don't see how this is something other than a simplified way of buying an ad, like in the Ads Manager. Sure, there are influencers and wannabe-influencers who pay to boost their posts for clout or something, that doesn't change the fact that this has a real business application. And for that use, it seems like Apple is modifying the status quo by taking something that used to not be an IAP (buying an ad) and deciding that you can't have a new way of buying one without using the IAP system. Maybe it was actually about whether it's all in one app or not rather than the nature of the purchase. But I don't think that describes the status quo of how these rules work, wouldn't the logical extreme be that you should be able to buy Kindle books in the Amazon Shopping app?