[freyrs3]

This was unexpected? How is not naive to expect a corporation to remove any software when it infringes on their bottomline. If you buy into developing software for this corporate-controlled walled garden of any kind you set yourself up for this. It's 2014, we've had 5 years of this kind of behavior from Apple and people still seem surprised by this fact.

[thethimble]

I'm surprised by the outrage. Apple's position here is logical - banning bitcoin wallet apps does not impact the vast majority of its userbase while taking a strong stance in preserving its payments monopoly. Corporations are not benevolent but are rational agents acting in their best interest.

[barce]

By that logic they should ban Paypal, Dwolla, Gyft, Gowallet, Visa, and any other payment app. They clearly haven't, and I'm not sure how Bitcoin apps are any different. The point is they aren't acting rationally.

[freyrs3]

And that's because those companies have made deals with Apple behind closed doors that your average app developer can't leverage. It's rational in the sense that it serves their interests.

[threeseed]

Care to provide evidence of this ? I led the mobile development effort for a very large international bank which was doing peer-peer payments. We didn't make any special deals and were subject to the same conditions as everyone else.

[jasonlotito]

One only need to make a payment through Fandango's iOS app and see that you can use PayPal to see that Apple's rules aren't the same for everyone.

[robterrell]

You're incorrect -- this is an example of the rule, not an exception.

Apple will not let Fandango (or anyone) sell a real-world item through IAP. That is why PayPal is acceptable. It's clearly stated in the app guidelines that IAP must be for virtual / digital items only.

I worked on an app that let you buy drinks at bars. In-app purchase was clearly out, so we integrated PayPal and Stripe. Apple allowed that and it's been in the store, with periodic updates and their reviews, for years.

[tzs]

PayPal has obtained appropriate licenses to act as a money transmitter in most states [1].

I can't tell from a casual reading of Blockchain's site if they are doing anything that would require state licensing or not. It seems that they hold a backup copy of their user's Bitcoin wallet. If that is just a backup for the "real" wallet on the mobile devices, or just used for syncing copies of the wallet between the user's multiple devices, my current vague understanding of the rules is that this would not be money transmission. However, if their servers are acting as intermediaries between the user and third parties for the exchange of Bitcoin (for goods, services, or real or virtual currency), then I think that would make them a money transmitter (or even make them a bank, which also opens up a huge regulatory can of worms).

[1] https://www.paypal-media.com/licenses

[threeseed]

Apple is acting completely rationally. They are being selfish. Bitcoin wallets have a terrible reputation for losing their customer's money and Bitcoin itself still has very unsavoury elements (drugs, money laundering etc) to say the least. Given that the press love a good Apple story you have to ask yourself why take the potential hit to the brand for no benefit ?

[beedogs]

For two years, that bitcoin wallet app was available for download from the App Store. Now, suddenly, it's an issue of "reputation"? What a load of crap.

[cefstat]

Well, it is only now that bitcoin is getting more widespread recognition and traction in traditional media.

[kristianp]

Apple has always been strong on protecting whatever competitive advantage it holds, whether it be from hardware clones or third party payment apps.

However, outrage is what it takes to get them to give ground. Take the ban on cross compilers and interpreters in apps for instance. It took substantial protest and outrage to get them to ease the restrictions.

http://allthingsd.com/20100614/apple-gives-ios-developers-a-...