Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by enragedcacti 1095 days ago
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.
2 comments
cjpearson 1095 days ago
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?

link
enragedcacti 1095 days ago
> 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...

link
kiwiidb 1094 days ago
Zaps on nostr always use the Lightning Network to send bitcoin so transaction fees are negligible.
link
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1095 days ago
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.

link
scotty79 1095 days ago
> developer has a strong case

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

link
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1095 days ago
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.

link
scotty79 1094 days ago
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.

link