Sounds like the tradeoff primal made was the smart one
Discussion
whats the tradeoff? a backroom deal? they are still violating the guidelines
assuming they are applying the same logic (although I still stand that zaps are not buying/unlocking digital content, so its all bullshit)
It's different logic because Primal is multi-platform.
that has nothing to do with appstore decisions... what
It does, 3.1.3(b).
Basically since Primal is multi-platform in the way that it is, a user can purchase “pre-paid zaps” outside of the iOS app and use them within the iOS app as long as these “pre-paid zaps” can also be purchased within the iOS app via in-app purchase and with Apple taking their cut on that purchase. So there's no forced exclusivity in some multi-platform cases. All of those boxes are ticked for Primal. Money coming in to the wallet from outside can be framed as "pre-paid zaps" purchased on another platform. It’s all just semantics, and clearly the Primal team knows what semantics are at play are and how to frame them, no real wizardry .
Today I learned.
> 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#multiplatform-services
hmmm. if this is the loophole then that makes sense.
The guidelines are bullshit so don’t give them too much weight. Read between the lines. They want a cut and they are telling you that. Put an option to buy sats through iOS but encourage users to deposit their own sats directly. They should leave you alone just like they did with primal.
Agreed, but how are you defining zaps, 'friends and family payments'? 🤙
No, the Apple reviewers who approved it don’t understand the feature well enough. Primal is also breaking Apple guidelines if you read it thoroughly.
They're likely leveraging a number of guidelines. Primal is multi-platform, and apps that are can let users access content, subscriptions, or features acquired outside the iOS app with the key condition that these items are available for purchase within the iOS app via in-app purchase. Primal frames these as pre-paid zaps, and when you put all that together with a few other guidelines then it's likely they are just taking a savvy approach and it's not Apple misunderstanding what Primal is or does.
I stand corrected. Incredibly confusing, though.
yeah it seems like a grey area, but hey if it works
Seems so. The pre-paid zaps framing is savvy because for Sats that are sent in to the in-app wallet from outside, there’s nothing else you can do with those Sats in Primal but zap, in which case they can be defended as externally-purchased pre-paid zaps, or else transfer them out, which is allowed under other guidelines anyway, like how zapping a profile can be seen as a transfer and not a tip. So there's really nothing that those sent-in Sats can do that's not defensible with some effort.
Taken literally yes. But when you consider that they are just trying to monetize the apps, then it makes more sense. They would’ve gone after primal by now if they weren’t making money off it. They’re not making shit off damus.