> 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.
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.
> (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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why doesn't the EU do something about that? Why is Apple an exception?
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"
> 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.
I’ve seen them used sensibly for shipment tracking, and such like. They’re great for that.
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.
