> Apps may use in-app purchase currencies to enable customers to “tip” the developer or digital content providers in the app.
Apple lists the limited scenarios where alternative purchase methods can be used and this one is not included. Since they mention it in the guidelines it's clearly something they are aware of.
You may disagree with Apple's policy, but bigger companies have fought this battle and lost. Intentionally (or unintentionally) misreading the guidelines isn't going to hold water on appeal.
> If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase.
> Apps may use in-app purchase currencies to enable customers to “tip” the developer or digital content providers in the app.
Using "must" for unlocking features and "may" for tipping is pretty odd if they need to be treated identically.
This is especially clear if you look later in the document where an almost identical phrasing is used in the other direction:
> If your app enables the purchase of real-time person-to-person services between two individuals you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments.
> If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments
Certainly the person-to-person transactions aren't required to use purchase methods other than in-app purchase despite the use of "may" in the same context.
This section could probably invalidate it although its extremely confusing because only "reader" apps (3.1.3(a)) are allowed to direct to other purchasing methods but physical goods apps are required not to use IAP. How would they avoid using IAP if they can't direct to other mechanisms?
> Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase, except as set forth in 3.1.3(a).
> (vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase.
Although I think it still depends on what Apple means by "associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services". I think they may be intending to allow something like GoFundMe or Venmo, while disallowing something like Reddit gold where users give gifts based on the digital content created even though that content isn't gated by payment.
Perhaps the developer's use of Bitcoin complicates things as well. Does Apple consider that a "monetary gift" or "digital content" or both?
Seems like the developer has a strong case, assuming these statements are truthful.
However, since tipping is not listed in the exceptions, one should read it as not being allowed.
Whether the policy is a good one or not is a fair question, but not one that App Store review will (or even can) answer, and trying to do anything there is barking up the wrong tree.
The right place to challenge this sort of thing is likely with organisations like the FTC, Competition and Markets Authority, or the EU equivalent.
I can't find the bit from the dev you're referring to so don't know if they have screenshots of it in writing or something, however, what I suspect is more likely (based on my experience talking to Apple reps about similar things) is that they gave a very charitable description of their feature, and the rep gave a non-committal "sounds like it could pass, try submitting it".
I don't get why the developer is so convinced that their tip system for tipping people based on their activity on their app is not tipping for "digital content". Unless you can only tip randomly with no control over who it goes to, or tipping is for the user's activity off-app, digital content (i.e. posts etc) are literally the only thing you could be tipping for.
> (vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase.
1. Full-on libre: speech, financial flows, technical architecture, etc. (i.e., basically the entire raison d'être for Nostr)
-or-
2. Live and work inside the walled garden of Apple + Google's app stores
You really can't have it both ways.
Because the benefits of side loading on iOS are so massive that everyone will use it i.e. you can use private APIs, bypass Apple's privacy controls, implement device tracking, harvest data e.g. contacts.
It's going to be a huge transfer of power and wealth back to the likes of Meta, Epic etc
(Yes, I'm aware of the workarounds. Those are not reasonable solutions.)
Just make sure people ask for permission. Before giving them access to something?
Don’t Android my iPhone.
I left Android for an iPhone for a reason.
Also free speech is a practical impossibility. Standard email is a free as it gets and it turns out nobody wants that because if you have completely free speech your inbox gets spammed into oblivion. Everyone draws the line somewhere.
And with email, the recipient can choose to override the spam filter. That's key, and is the reason that spam filters aren't censorship.
Then they came for the crypto crap, and I did not speak out because I didn’t want that crap.
Then they came for the NFTs, and I did not speak out because I was not an NFT bro.
Then they came for the weekly trash pickup, and I said thank you.
The thing about the "first they came" poem is that attacking the socialists, trade unionists and jews is already bad. There's a reason it doesn't start with "first they came for the murderers, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a murderer".
The poem urges us to stand up against injustice even if it doesn't affect us directly. The poem doesn't argue that all slopes are slippery.
It has nothing to do with free speech or anything, it’s a wart
Just asking to better understand the underlying knowledge on the topic before putting myself into this valley of tears.
Don't know for your provider, but on Gmail, I click on Spam and there are all there. It's not censorship, it's sorting. I usually go see them once a month, just in case something got badly sorted (it's also quite entertaining to see the scams attempts).
In what world is it censorship to choose to read something or not too? It may be censorship for sure that something is blocked (and still can be argued upon), but choosing not to read crap is not censorship, just like choosing not to read every scientific papers in the world is not censorship…
Do these people really believe that the cypherpunk ethos involves being an Apple bootlicker? I don't get it.
That’s time you don’t get back, lost forever because some one you’ll never meet on a committee says no.
“It has to be an app” is old world thinking. No iOS app in the past 3 years or more has disrupted anything.
So targeting Android makes much more sense than targeting iOS in this respect.
Android users are notorious for not spending money (IIRC Apple users spend double the amount of money on subscriptions vs Android users) and it's unlikely Android users would tip content creators, or even watch the content they're putting out there.
But irrespective of that, none of that makes it cypherpunk.
Cypherpunk involves advocating widespread use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political change.
On that front Google is VERY far behind Apple.
But it doesn’t make using the “open” software that’s completely controlled by the giant corporate empire any more “cypherpunk”, does it?
It’s nice that it’s an option, I agree. That’s not really cypherpunk tho, is it?
I would really want to see a Crypto Anarchist focused mobile phone.
They aren't ok with it. The EU recently passed the Digital Markets Act. But some of the provisions don't take effect until 2024.
It's only a problem for the rest of the world.
They’re not even in the same league as what MS was doing. At the time of the EU vs MS suit they had a 91% market share, and had only recently come down from a fraction over 95%
THAT is why the EU took action. Apple isn’t in a monopoly position in phones at all, they’re not even the dominant OS.
What they are, is the one that makes the most money.
Based off what I found through a quick search, in Q4 2022 Apple has 29% of smartphone shipment and they have about 38% of mobile OS share. Not tiny, but not dominating the market. Back when Microsoft was being prosecuted, they had >95% of desktop OS share, approaching 99% in some places, and they were accused of leveraging that to muscle out paid-for software vendors that sold directly competing software (both operating systems through exclusivity agreements with OEMs and application software on Windows).
Apple giving away Safari for free at a time when all major web browsers are free is different. Sure, Apple might benefit from being the default but Spotify and Pandora, which compete with Apple Music, are both still in Apple's app store.
Nothing forces anyone to buy an iPhone. They don’t even have a majority of market share. In the late 90s-2000s, Microsoft actually held a monopoly on PCs. Smartphones on the other hand are a very healthy duopoly with diversity and cross pollination of ideas.
Why doesn't the EU do something about that? Why is Apple an exception?
Complaining about iPhones and game consoles being closed is like complaining that your Honda Civic isn’t good at off-roading and won’t tow your horse trailer.
Agreed on the other two though, both should also be forced to open up.
Exact same thing.
A phone isn't a "general computing device" like a PC any more than a gaming console is. So if Apple has to allow 3rd party stuff on their phones, it must be so for PS and Xbox too.
Though I disagree that a phone is not a 'general computing device' moreso than a gaming console is, it is hard to come up with a legally-clear definition of one.
I also love how "bureaucrat" ended up meaning "any government body which does stuff I don't like"
a) : a body of nonelected government officials
or
b) : an administrative policymaking group
So really, any government is a bureaucracy.
> I like crypto but think 99.999% of NFTs are scams
It is more like 100% are scams, there is no NFT use case, it's all just jpgs.
Does a domain name need a token attached to the service in order to operate?
I would say it is still a scam as it is airdropping ENS tokens that were minted out of thin air and insiders pump and dumping the token to make a profit.
You can't do that illegal stuff with traditional domain names.
I’ve seen them used sensibly for shipment tracking, and such like. They’re great for that.
The marketplace decides what the purpose is. The use case people wanted was an easy way to launder real money into jpegs of arbitrarily set ETH values. Now that the PPP loan and ZIRP era is over, the bottom has fallen out of NFTs entirely. NBA Top Shot was one of the few non-jpeg early succes stories but that's flamed out as well.
Why do this when the current system already handles this? This is no unique usecase.
Might as well let someone else have sex with your wife while you're at it.
Nobody makes money without giving Don Cook his share.
That would be fantastic as it has no place on the App Store.
That's where regulation comes in, where government comes in, where centralization comes in.
Do you seriously believe, that if Bitcoin becomes the global currency, that crime won't skyrocket due to people getting robbed relentlessly? You just need the PK dawg, and it's very easy to tell if you were told the truth - access to the wallet opens up.
I think you are just naive about the nature of mankind. We need rules, structure and order - the key question, is how do we create the environment that allows enough structure to not interfere with the creative process to allow us to continue growing and developing new technology?
Bitcoiners have a sad, yet fascinating trend to talk about nothing but Bitcoin. Take a look at your comment history.
How does allowing people to send small tipping amounts of Bitcoin for fun from their hot wallet mean "bad actors ruining things for the rest of us"?
>Do you seriously believe, that if Bitcoin becomes the global currency, that crime won't skyrocket due to people getting robbed relentlessly? You just need the PK dawg, and it's very easy to tell if you were told the truth - access to the wallet opens up.
And if people have geographically distributed multi-sig cold storage for the bulk of their wealth? Will they be getting "robbed relentlessly"? If you follow best practice and take self custody seriously you'll be fine so no I don't seriously believe people would be robbed relentlessly.
So I'll ask you too, what's your problem with other people sending small amounts of money P2P in a fun way to each other in a currency they prefer? Just don't use it if you don't like it.
>Bitcoiners have a sad, yet fascinating trend to talk about nothing but Bitcoin. Take a look at your comment history.
Again, what's your point? I'm stirred to reply to fiat brained financial authoritarianism, that's what I find weird and sad.
