[cjpearson]

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.

[enragedcacti]

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).

[enragedcacti]

I'm outside of the edit window on this comment otherwise I would make this more prominent, but way below in the "Other" section they do actually have a "monetary gift" rule that aligns with what the dev says:

> (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.

[cjpearson]

Oh, that could change things.

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?

[enragedcacti]

> Perhaps the developer's use of Bitcoin complicates things as well.

I was thinking about that, the transaction fees alone would mean that less than 100% is going to the recipient.

Even more confusing, Patreon's entire business model is taking a cut of donations associated with access to content and they seem to still be exempt:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/06/22/patreon-doesnt-pa...

[kiwiidb]

Zaps on nostr always use the Lightning Network to send bitcoin so transaction fees are negligible.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Considering that, the only other thing I could think Apple sees is that the tip partially goes to the developer, making (b) false. But then: https://twitter.com/damusapp/status/1673347949718548487

Seems like the developer has a strong case, assuming these statements are truthful.

[scotty79]

> developer has a strong case

Strong case? Apple can change the rules tomorrow to whatever they want.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

True. Apple can also choose to stand their ground, which would likely work if the developer doesn’t have the resources to fight a court battle. There may be other viable strategies for them to remove this application in whatever legally valid way.

Still, a plaintext interpretation (as far as I can tell) of Apple’s current rules seems to favor the developer, given the circumstances.

[scotty79]

Why go to court instead of changing the rules the next day so that the app more obviously violates them and remove it anyways?

What developer are gonna to go to court for the few weeks or months when his app was removed for ambiguous reasons?

Terms and conditions mean nothing for Apple. They are solely to restrict developers how Apple wants. They give developers no rights in practice. Only the illusion.

[cjpearson]

Yes, I think their phrasing in that sentence is vague. It should be structured like the functionality one to make clear that tipping _may_ be added, but if implemented it _must_ use in-app purchases.

However, since tipping is not listed in the exceptions, one should read it as not being allowed.

[enragedcacti]

Agreed, from historical context it definitely seems like the intention was confirming for developers that tipping is a valid use case for IAP and not creating an exemption, but I can see why a motivated party would read it differently, and it is made even more confusing by the App Store review notice seemingly acknowledging that some tips are exempt.

[chongli]

So can't people who want to offer an in-app "tip the developer" feature simply comply (without paying Apple's commission) by selling a token physical good such as a button, sticker, t-shirt, or other merchandise?

[newaccount74]

It sounds like that should be allowed. But I think that fulfilling button, stickers and t-shirts orders is pretty expensive, and only makes sense if people give big tips (eg. if someone tips 5€, there's not going to be much left after you pay someone to mail them a sticker).

[sigmar]

"thank you for your button order. We expect to ship this order about 1 week after the heat death of the universe."

[chongli]

Or perhaps more realistically, tell them they can pick up their button when they come to meet you at the next DevCon.

[jrmg]

I’m pretty sure person to person transactions (and any transactions for physical goods) _are_ required to use methods other than in-app purchase.

[danpalmer]

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.

[kiwiidb]

The developer had a meeting with Apple representatives where they assured him that tipping profiles would be okay so he adjusted his app so people would tip profiles instead of posts. Then they still rejected the app.

[danpalmer]

Sure but reading the guidelines that Apple representative was clearly mistaken. Unless they said "we acknowledge what the guidelines say but they are incorrect", it just seems like poor developer relations comms (from Apple, never!).

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.

[jacquesm]

The Apple representative may have been mistaken, but they did represent Apple and as such have very clearly overruled the guidelines. It should have ended there.

The degree to which people will twist themselves into pretzels to defend mega-corps is something I find hard to understand, for this guy it is their life line and for Apple it is a non-issue. Apple doesn't get to hide behind their own guidelines if even their own representatives don't know them well enough to adequately represent the company.

[TillE]

It's unfortunate confusion, but a mistake from an employee is not a policy commitment. If Tim Cook said it, sure, but a low-level "representative" is just someone doing a job.

[jacquesm]

Legally speaking this is incorrect.

The company can delegate people to interact with the outside world and those people have the ability to bind the company. If they mess up beyond their pay grade then the company may have recourse on them but the company may well still be bound externally.

You still have to check if the functionary is an 'authorized agent' but if they misrepresent themselves as such then the company may well have a problem if you had no reason to believe otherwise (for instance: because of their job title or because someone with signing authority delegated the interaction with you). Such 'apparent authority' (of which this may well be a case) is the source of much confusion and many lawsuits.

[enragedcacti]

The actual policy at issue is tucked away in the "Other Business Model Issues" section and uses the term "monetary gift" instead of tip:

> (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.