Man, AppLovin can’t catch a break this year.
After reporting strong earnings last week, the company saw its share price drop immediately. The stock is now down nearly 40% overall this year (thank you, SaaSpocalypse). On top of that, AppLovin is facing fresh criticism on X.
Over the weekend, Collin Slattery, founder and CEO of Taikun Digital — which bills itself as a “Meta + Google + Creative Strategy” shop — called AppLovin a scam in a viral post.
Here’s the post in its entirety:
Yeesh. Them’s fighting words.
“In-app ads are the most dogshit of dogshit ad inventory on the internet,” he wrote. “Some random ass company did not crack some secret code to somehow make them as good as Meta ads.”
Why This Matters:
Slattery’s critique doesn’t just target AppLovin. It frames in-app advertising, broadly, as low-quality or inherently “bad” inventory. But is that fair?
Users now spend more than 90% of their smartphone time inside apps, compared to less than 6% in mobile browsers. That share has steadily increased over the past several years.
This also isn’t only about walled gardens. One analysis found that the independent app ecosystem — outside of major platforms — reaches more than two billion daily active users, delivering comparable reach and engagement to TikTok and Instagram combined.
Meanwhile, targeting and measurement capabilities in-app have improved. There are more formats, more performance-driven tools for marketers, and a large base of ad-supported inventory. Over 90% of apps are free to use and rely on advertising to monetize.
Advertisers are responding accordingly. According to Grand View Research, the global in-app advertising market was valued at $182 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $481 billion by 2033.
In short, the idea that in-app is inherently “bad” inventory runs counter to both usage trends and spending patterns. The more relevant conversation is about quality, transparency, and performance — not whether the channel itself works.
Experts React:
Haus’ Olivia Kory pushed back on Slattery’s take, calling it potentially “uninformed.”
She later added: “it’s certainly not comparable to meta but it’s pretty good and a strong contender for #3 after Meta and Google.”
Our Take:
The industry, oddly, likes to eat itself with takes like this as they end up making an entire category of advertising look bad. Of course, there are valid questions being asked about AppLovin, and those deserve thoughtful consideration (especially given the company’s size and success). But some commentary in this space veers into hyperbole and ragebait, which can undercut the substance and seriousness.
Keep in mind, for example, that just a week ago, a short seller apologized and retracted a report that had accused AppLovin of financial crimes. That raises the bar for fact and data-based perspectives over hot takes.
