Since Cook made a mockery of Zuckerberg in the "Cambridge Gate" incident in 2018, the relationship between Meta and Apple has begun to deteriorate sharply in recent years. Not long ago, Apple announced that it would add two new advertising spaces to the existing App Store in all regions except mainland China. While increasing advertising space this time, Apple also quietly revised some terms of the App Store.
But this change quickly triggered Meta's public criticism of Apple's change of app store terms as "weakening other companies in the digital economy."
So what has Apple changed in the App Store? In fact, in the update of the relevant terms on October 24, two changes have occurred in total. First, it is the first time that Apple has officially formulated NFT-related rules for iOS applications, allowing developers to build their own NFT platforms in the ecosystem and sell NFT-related products, but it still requires a 30% commission. Obviously, this move is a good thing for the NFT industry, and it is too late for relevant practitioners to be happy. The second change is that when users or advertisers pay to promote content on social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, they must use the App Store's in-app purchase project mechanism (IAP).
Meta said in a relevant statement, "Apple previously said that they did not share the share from the developer's advertising revenue. Obviously, they have changed their minds now. We are still committed to providing small businesses with easy ways to serve advertising and helping them develop their business in our applications."
As for why, why did , which was also affected by the change of this clause, and Meta stood up and spoke out without commenting? This is naturally because Meta and Apple have both new enemies and feuds.
Now, Meta's Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp have built the largest social network in the overseas market, and are undoubtedly one of the most affected companies under Apple's new policy. Even the Internet celebrity economy on Instagram will be hit hard after the implementation of the new policy. Once the creator avoids being commissioned by Apple, he is likely to choose private transactions with advertisers, which is equivalent to making the advertising trading platform Meta established in the past decade invalid. With core executives now rushing to leave, performance declines, and stock prices plummeting, how can Mete tolerate the advertising business, which is the pillar of revenue, going wrong?
Earlier, due to the application tracking transparency function online in iOS 14, advertisers on iOS platform were greatly affected. According to relevant statistics, Meta has lost more than $10 billion in advertising revenue. These new and old hatreds are superimposed together, so how could Meta not stand up and attack Apple?
In fact, Apple's move is indeed unprecedented, which makes Meta emotionally excited. According to Apple, "If it is digital paid purchase content that is used for experience or consumption in the application, including purchasing advertisements displayed in the same application, you must use the in-app purchase system."
You should know that in the previous case of Epic Games suing Apple, App Store head Phil Schiller made it clear that the company has never received commissions from developers' advertising revenue, and this will not come true in the future.
However, times have changed, Apple has broken its promise and started to "tax" advertising behavior in iOS apps. At present, it has become a trend for advertisers to find creators to place advertisements on social platforms and creators to find creators to "get a meal" for investors. Whether it is in Douyin , Kuaishou, Weibo , Bilibili , or instagram, YouTube, etc. in overseas markets, it is a common operation for creators to monetize with their influence.
Simply put, the adjustment of this rule means that Apple is preparing to "tax" the entire Internet celebrity economy within the ecosystem. You should know that advertising is the first of the three traditional monetization models of the Internet, so the impact of Apple's move may be unprecedented.
Nowadays, it is not only Meta, but many overseas internet celebrities have already complained about this new policy and described it as "rude and unreasonable". Some overseas netizens gave an example. Apple's approach is equivalent to that if the website receives advertisements, the result is that Google 's Chrome 's and Microsoft 's Windows said that we want to take commission on the website's advertisements.
So why should Apple take the commission for advertising promotion behaviors that occur in iOS applications? This is because Apple sees it as an in-app purchase, which obviously doesn't make sense. As we all know, in order to ensure the interests of advertisers and internet celebrities, the platform often serves as intermediaries to match trading , so a number of intermediary platforms such as ByteDance's huge engine , Kuaishou's magnetic star, and B station's fireworks were born. Since the transaction takes place inside the app, it is natural to be considered an in-app purchase.
Of course, in the eyes of Meta and many creators, this new policy on the Apple App Store is unreasonable. At the beginning, Apple gave a reason for the in-app purchase commission because it spent a lot of resources to operate and promote the App Store. Developers used the App Store to sell products to users. Apple needed to use a 30% commission to maintain the App Store's expenses to balance. This was recognized by the majority of iOS developers before Epic Games "resurrected".
Developers make money with the distribution capabilities of the App Store. Apple obviously has reason to charge a commission. This is the so-called "I opened this mountain and I planted this tree. If you want to pass this road, you will leave it to buy wealth." The problem is that users earn advertising fees from advertisers with the help of the platform provided by the application, which is actually a relationship between the App Store and the developer. The application operator can charge a commission, which is natural.
Simply put, Apple's commission for advertising in the application is equivalent to the landlord renting the house to the "second landlord" and taking the commission from the rent collected by the second landlord from the tenant. If Apple's logic is recognized, communication operators may be disappointed. After all, the communication network built by the operator is the basis. In a sense, this new policy on Apple's App Store is giving people a handle.
Nowadays, operators have almost become the "pipeline" of the Internet industry, and the communication network they have spent huge amounts of money to build eventually makes wedding clothes for Internet companies. If Apple believes that advertising promotion in iOS apps can only be established based on the App Store, operators certainly have reason to believe that the reason why Apple can establish the App Store depends on the network they built.
Once the operator has such an idea, the world will be in chaos.
