It largely depends on how you self-categorise your app when you submit.
You can submit a nostr client as a browser and probably avoid this outcome.
There will be nostr clients on iOS with zaps, just not Damus. There already are.
People who think this is Apple acting as a strategic corporate entity and not 5 rando employees grinding through another Tuesday should submit apps more often.
Watching the AppStore I see it was submitted as a social media app. The tag line could make one think that Damus is the social media network, not Nostr.
Regardless of how many or what level of employees are involved in the discussion, 30% tax on access to content NOT hosted by Apple is theft as they do not provide direct service to the content makers.
After a few news articles, and a few more we’re not at the 5 employees on a Tuesday stage of things no more anyway.
nostr:npub1xtscya34g58tk0z605fvr788k263gsu6cy9x0mhnm87echrgufzsevkk5s the only mention of Nostr is in the company name (Damus Nostr Inc.) why?
The service Apple provide is hosting. You soon notice when their service is revoked.
But yes all these clients are browsers in my opinion, none of them own/control their network. Browsers have separate requirements/rights guidelines in the App Store.
nostr clients are literally connecting to public IP addresses and domains that are determined by the user. I never really understood why you would claim to be a media app? It makes no sense to me, but we don’t know the dev’s strategy so they are free to choose.
Apple had this out with BaseCamp, that was the last change to their views on “reader Apps” as far as I’m aware.
All #nostr clients definitely meet that mould inc Damus but they’re hung up on Zaps even though they don’t support Bitcoin payments.
That’s what makes this supremely dumb. They can’t even support in-app payments yet demand that be the path forward!
GPT’d it:
There was a significant change in Apple's App Store policies that occurred in response to regulatory pressure and lawsuits, most notably from Epic Games. As part of this change, Apple announced that "reader" apps would be able to provide a single link to a website for account management, including payment setup.
"Reader" apps are a category of apps defined by Apple that provide previously purchased content or subscriptions for digital magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video. Examples include Netflix, Spotify, and Kindle. Before this change, Apple's policy was to disallow any links or instructions that explained to users how to pay for their subscriptions outside the app, which allowed Apple to enforce its 15-30% commission on in-app purchases.
The situation between Apple and Basecamp originated with the launch of Basecamp's new email service, "HEY". Basecamp didn't want to use Apple's in-app purchasing system (which would require them to give Apple a significant cut of the subscription fee), but Apple initially rejected updates to the HEY app because it did not offer in-app purchases.
Apple's revised policy could potentially benefit companies like Basecamp by allowing them to link their users to an external website for payment setup, thereby bypassing the App Store's commission. However, the exact specifics of the interaction between Basecamp and Apple post-2021, and whether further disputes arose, would require up-to-date information beyond my current training data.
For the latest information on this topic, I recommend checking the most recent news sources or official statements from the companies involved.
That’s right, forgot about the single external link they allowed..
Wonder if that could be used to technically comply with their policy by allowing a zap workflow to appear in the in-app browser?
