“ 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.
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.
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
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.
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.