Nostr Web Client

Why did apple backtrack on their approval? Do you think there is a push coming to review all btc/ln apps?

They simply took a closer look at the feature, and found that it clearly violates one of their rules for monetization (which is that tips associated directly with content must use in-app purchase).

This does happen. Most people don’t realize that a number of years back there was a large outcry at the length of app review times. They fixed it, and I’m pretty sure that was partially by not looking as closely at everything an update does.

I don’t think anyone should infer there’s any prejudice towards bitcoin or that there’s going to be any wider look at BTC-oriented apps. Many folks definitely seem to be drawing the wrong conclusions here IMO, from what I’ve seen in the last week.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

elsat 2y ago 💬 1

> it clearly violates one of their rules for monetization (which is that tips associated directly with content must use in-app purchase)

This is the assessment where I disagree.

Tips are *not* associated with purchasing, selling, or receiving content (damus has not implemented e.g. content paywall/similar functionality).

> 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

There are *no* unlock mechanisms.

> Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency wallets, etc. 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).

There are *no* unlock, or purchasing mechanisms.

Apple must understand there is a double standard applied in the case of Damus.

If you ban voluntary peer to peer tips, Apple must also ban venmo, and zelle.

aidan 2y ago 💬 2

Apple aren’t objecting to tips. They’re objecting to the zap button underneath each piece of content. And they’ve had a rule that specifies you can’t do that for some time. Their rules are maddeningly complex but this one is right there in plain sight:

elsat 2y ago 💬 1

Once again, this is the key point of objection.

Notes are not NFTs. Notes are not owned if lightning is tipped directly to a LN address. Tips happens peer-to-peer outside nostr. Nostr client simply provides notes, and information of the poster for all others.

The tip is

1) completely optional

2) 100% go to receiver of the gift

As explicitly stated in the text you shared.

aidan 2y ago 💬 1

I think I’ll stop arguing here, as Apple’s language - which is intentionally broad with the ‘associated’ term being key here - is clear to me, and it’s equally clear I’m not convincing you otherwise.

I don’t like it, I hope they change it, but it is the reality. We won’t change their mind by telling them their own rule is saying something else.

elsat 2y ago

I hear you, and appreciate the feedback since you know the company well.

Agree company can do what they want.

I think the long-term solution could be to open the eyes of a leader in-house of the opportunity of LN.

Carlos 2y ago 💬 1

What happens if a simple like triggers such a "monetary gift"?

What if you have a bot running somewhere, listening for your likes, and each time you like a note it finds the LN Address of the author and tips some sats.

Would Apple ban likes?

Would Apple even whether this is happening or not?

nostr:note1qqq8pgp23k394cukg4w9mgfjh54z9jhyjukqan582rkks36rhs5s620vev