It's hard to see this appeal going anywhere. The app store guidelines even explicitly mention this use case as one that requires in-app purchases to be used.
> 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.
I don't think the section you quote tells the whole story
> 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).
Yeah this case seems incredibly obvious, and I feel like any suggestion from the developer that they aren't violating the policies is disingenuous.
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’m happy with the one that doesn’t allow crypto crap.
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.
I mean anyone who would work on or with a google platform certainly isn’t. They’re the least cypherpunk, most bland and corporate, evil tech corp I can think of that makes consumer hardware outside of MAYBE Meta.
This is what happens when you give a single company monopoly over your computing. I know there's a lot of apple fans around here, but I think it's largely social proof, apple products are jewelry in my eyes. Why anyone would develop for such an unpredicrably restrictive platform is beyond me. Apple is just too controlled for my taste. If I developed mobile apps I wouldn't even try to build an iPhone version.
I can't believe the EU, which has fined Microsoft because of having IE as the default browser, is OK with Apple having a total walled garden in iOS. Which by the way only has one "browser", because other browsers are forced to use the safari engine.
This is missing context: Microsoft made their browser free at a time when Netscape cost $49.
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.
Three companies have wall gardens for game consoles and nobody cares about that. Those three companies own the entire console market. There's no alternative.
Why doesn't the EU do something about that? Why is Apple an exception?
Remember: everything you blame Apple of also applies to Sony (Playstation) and Microsoft (Xbox).
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.
A bunch of bureaucrats somehow outsmarting one of the most well resourced and talented machineries out there is the thing I am skeptical about. The two systems are not equal by a long shot.
Regulatory oversight in addition to Apple looking for its cut is a good reason why this would have been blocked anyway. Few things out there are more regulated than the transfer of money, something the crypto economy is desperately trying to avoid.
Anything else you want banned just because you don't like it authoritarian? If you don't like it just don't use it. You're financially privileged, just stick to your transactions your bank let you do and let other people do what they want.
Considering the App Store is 99% adwall trash and subscription scam apps I’d say if you hate Bitcoin you’d have to admit it’s right at home with the rest of the content there.
And? This is as expected as you can get, Apple does not allow you to by pass them for payment. Next thing you know, the dev will have a rule on its website enabling certain features once you tipped, Apple isn’t gonna wait till that happens
cjpearson|2 years ago
> 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.
enragedcacti|2 years ago
> 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).
danpalmer|2 years ago
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.
hummer_embark|2 years ago
[deleted]
rcoder|2 years ago
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.
max_|2 years ago
Pulcinella|2 years ago
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.
RATML|2 years ago
Do these people really believe that the cypherpunk ethos involves being an Apple bootlicker? I don't get it.
whywhywhywhy|2 years ago
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.
photonerd|2 years ago
lovvtide|2 years ago
https://satellite.earth
https://primal.net
https://iris.to
https://snort.social
https://app.coracle.social
max_|2 years ago
I would really want to see a Crypto Anarchist focused mobile phone.
fsflover|2 years ago
friend_and_foe|2 years ago
cypress66|2 years ago
lapcat|2 years ago
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.
Varloom|2 years ago
It's only a problem for the rest of the world.
tgv|2 years ago
zimzam|2 years ago
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.
zerohp|2 years ago
Why doesn't the EU do something about that? Why is Apple an exception?
theshrike79|2 years ago
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.
waihtis|2 years ago
lockhouse|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
timeon|2 years ago
siwatanejo|2 years ago
colesantiago|2 years ago
> 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.
user6723|2 years ago
Might as well let someone else have sex with your wife while you're at it.
300bps|2 years ago
m3kw9|2 years ago
Gareth321|2 years ago
dkobia|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
rabuse|2 years ago
croes|2 years ago
Nobody makes money without giving Don Cook his share.
mwcremer|2 years ago
tough|2 years ago
NoelWilson51|2 years ago
[deleted]
ChampEzra|2 years ago
[deleted]
colesantiago|2 years ago
That would be fantastic as it has no place on the App Store.
tossl568|2 years ago
whywhywhywhy|2 years ago
kayamon|2 years ago
sunshinerag|2 years ago
m3kw9|2 years ago