Social media apps must pay App Store 30% for boosts
Apple's revised App Store guidelines are now explicit that any social media app that allows paid boosts to social media posts are subject to the 30% in-app purchase fee.
Alongside new rules for NFTs and cryptocurrency, Apple has added or altered many App Store stipulations. Notably, it is introducing this 30% IAP levy on social media boosts, but it also sets out to be clear which apps it does and does not applies to.
"Digital purchases for content that is experienced or consumed in an app," it says in the new updates, " including buying advertisements to display in the same app (such as sales of 'boosts' for posts in a social media app) must use in-app purchase."
This is where the buyer is an individual, or perhaps a small business, that is buying a boost for a particular post within a social media app. Apple does not apply this fee where the app is entirely about advertising.
"Apps for the sole purpose of allowing advertisers (persons or companies that advertise a product, service, or event) to purchase and manage advertising campaigns across media types (television, outdoor, websites, apps, etc.) do not need to use in-app purchase," says Apple.
"These apps are intended for campaign management purposes and do not display the advertisements themselves," it continues.
Apple's full App Store guidelines documentation for developers is available online.
Read on AppleInsider
Alongside new rules for NFTs and cryptocurrency, Apple has added or altered many App Store stipulations. Notably, it is introducing this 30% IAP levy on social media boosts, but it also sets out to be clear which apps it does and does not applies to.
"Digital purchases for content that is experienced or consumed in an app," it says in the new updates, " including buying advertisements to display in the same app (such as sales of 'boosts' for posts in a social media app) must use in-app purchase."
This is where the buyer is an individual, or perhaps a small business, that is buying a boost for a particular post within a social media app. Apple does not apply this fee where the app is entirely about advertising.
"Apps for the sole purpose of allowing advertisers (persons or companies that advertise a product, service, or event) to purchase and manage advertising campaigns across media types (television, outdoor, websites, apps, etc.) do not need to use in-app purchase," says Apple.
"These apps are intended for campaign management purposes and do not display the advertisements themselves," it continues.
Apple's full App Store guidelines documentation for developers is available online.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
The app is circumventing Apple's advertisement platform. Would be similar to complaining for having to pay Google for displaying ads next to search results.
Tumblr? That platform still exists?
Would you like to rent from the only two landlords in the world (Mr. Google, Mr. Apple)?
Simon Property Group, Inc. is an American real estate investment trust that invests in shopping malls, outlet centers, and community/lifestyle centers. It is the largest owner of shopping malls in the United States and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
I've always assumed this was a ludicrous position because it was A above. But I think Apple is of the opinion that it is B above. Still seems unlikely to hold water, but a little more nuanced and debatable.
Oh, wait they want to use the Apple APIs to sniff all my phone meta data, location, etc.
You want to play. You need to pay. Otherwise shutup and create your own platform or move to a different device. 70% of something is much better than 100% of NOTHING.
I was using the landlord analogy (or for that matter, real estate agency) though, because it better outlines the restrictive and world wide nature of Apple and Google’s duopoly across the world.
This is the irony of it all: many people on this platform defend Apple for their position (“they came up with the platform, why shouldn’t they be able to decide the rules?”) which is a free market thought. However, this is not limitless.