Coinpunk's Response to Apple for Removal of Blockchain App(blog.coinpunk.com)
blog.coinpunk.com
Coinpunk's Response to Apple for Removal of Blockchain App
http://blog.coinpunk.com/?id=blockchain#appleblockchainresponse
8 comments
iTunes is a type of payment network, and Apple's demand for a 30% share of revenue generated via apps is key to protecting that competitive advantage.
Bitcoin apps are a challenge to this. Say if Amazon made a wallet app that happened to let you buy EBooks?
Bitcoin apps are a challenge to this. Say if Amazon made a wallet app that happened to let you buy EBooks?
I guess that's why the PayPal app doesn't exist?
https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/paypal/id283646709?mt=8
https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/paypal/id283646709?mt=8
The Square app exists too, Apple even sells their hardware at their stores.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/H8332LL/B/square-credit-ca...
http://store.apple.com/us/product/H8332LL/B/square-credit-ca...
Can you embed code that allows you to buy books, music or movies via PayPal in the App Store? No.
The difference between bit coin and the paypal app is that bit coin is cash. If I embed bit coin code in say, the Kindle App, I can make purchases that Apple wants a 30% cut of.
The difference between bit coin and the paypal app is that bit coin is cash. If I embed bit coin code in say, the Kindle App, I can make purchases that Apple wants a 30% cut of.
You're not making any sense. I don't think you understand how Bitcoin, IAP, or iOS works. One app can't just "embed" code in another, Bitcoin is not cash as we know it, and Apple's app review process would target the app attempting to use a forbidden IAP mechanism, not another app for moving money around.
That's really quite wrong. No matter what kind of currency is being used, an app like this can't possibly compete with the things that one purchases through Apple's stores. You can't buy apps or IAP, and you can't buy music/movies/TV from iTunes with it either.
So no, it has nothing to do with iTunes, and nothing to do with Apple's 30% cut. It's just a completely made-up reason.
So no, it has nothing to do with iTunes, and nothing to do with Apple's 30% cut. It's just a completely made-up reason.
As I understand it, Apple also required any app selling things in iOS to give them 30%. Which is why for example, Amazon does not have an in-app link to their ebook site through the Kindle app. Bitcoin could potentially circumvent this.
If you sell something in your app that is then consumed in the app, you have to do it through Apple's IAP and give them a 30% cut.
On the other hand, if you're selling physical products, you're not allowed to use Apple's IAP. I was actually surprised when I read this, but the review rules did state that last time I looked.
Using an app to manage a payment system that's external to Apple is quite legitimate. That's why the PayPal app exists. And I would wager that Bitcoin apps would fall under the same general category, of being things that happen outside of IAP, and therefore the reason they're getting pulled from the store has to do with something other than the IAP rules.
On the other hand, if you're selling physical products, you're not allowed to use Apple's IAP. I was actually surprised when I read this, but the review rules did state that last time I looked.
Using an app to manage a payment system that's external to Apple is quite legitimate. That's why the PayPal app exists. And I would wager that Bitcoin apps would fall under the same general category, of being things that happen outside of IAP, and therefore the reason they're getting pulled from the store has to do with something other than the IAP rules.
Apple is obviously working on one, and they see Bitcoinas a competitor(as they should).
The iBeacon is a clear step in that direction and besides it's not like Apple is upfront about it's business, iBeacon was in Apple devices for two years before anybody found out about them for crying out loud. They know their endgame and are always working towards it.
That being said, they will loose this one
The iBeacon is a clear step in that direction and besides it's not like Apple is upfront about it's business, iBeacon was in Apple devices for two years before anybody found out about them for crying out loud. They know their endgame and are always working towards it.
That being said, they will loose this one
There are rumors Apple is launching one soon. If Apple already knows that, then it "makes sense" for Apple to already start banning them now, rather than make it super obvious why they are doing it after they launch their own payment service.
Was blockchain willing to give Apple it's 30% cut of purchases? Wonder if that would have made a difference.
Blockchain.info (not blockchain, that's a term for part of the Bitcoin protocol) is a web wallet rather than a purchasing service. I doubt anybody would use something like that, especially in the "trustless" model Blockchain.info advertises itself to use.
It's not "announced" but the rumors are flying.
Most Apple rumours don't even have a grain of truth, why start screaming around like lunatics that Apple feels threatened? Apple made six times more profit in Q4 of last year[0] than the Bitcoin total market cap[1][2], it's not even on the radar if they were making their own payment system.
They don't want sketchy looking payment apps on their storep, that's fairly easy to understand. It's behaviour like this post that makes the Bitcoin community even more hostile for companies to even consider approaching.
[0]: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/10/28Apple-Reports-Four...
[1]: The "market cap" is misleading in this circumstance anyway, you could probably only sell a few million dollars of the stuff before the market completely bottomed out and panic ensued that it never rose up again. There's very little liquidity and a lot of weak hands.
[2]: http://coinmarketcap.com/
They don't want sketchy looking payment apps on their storep, that's fairly easy to understand. It's behaviour like this post that makes the Bitcoin community even more hostile for companies to even consider approaching.
[0]: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/10/28Apple-Reports-Four...
[1]: The "market cap" is misleading in this circumstance anyway, you could probably only sell a few million dollars of the stuff before the market completely bottomed out and panic ensued that it never rose up again. There's very little liquidity and a lot of weak hands.
[2]: http://coinmarketcap.com/
I don't understand how the challenge to Apple is supposed to work.
Isn't this equivalent to, say, Wal-Mart deciding not to stock your widgets anymore because they're going to manufacture a competing widget? It sucks, sure, but it also seems like it's within their rights to do so.
Is Apple in the clear or are they running afoul of the law somewhere?
Isn't this equivalent to, say, Wal-Mart deciding not to stock your widgets anymore because they're going to manufacture a competing widget? It sucks, sure, but it also seems like it's within their rights to do so.
Is Apple in the clear or are they running afoul of the law somewhere?
Its ok for you that they decide, what apps you can or cant have in a device you bought with your own money?
First they use morality.. and kick out some tech, just because they dont like them.. than they use all sorts of games to tell who are in and who are out.. but hey! the phone is in your pocket.. you should decide, not them
Its a company or its your priest? They are deciding your life for you... wake up.
Really, i dont want to have anything to do with apple, im a free spirit and i know better whats good for me, they just need to get out of our way.. but the state are also corrupted by the big companies.. they do nothing to stop that..because you know, politics and power is a expensive game to play.. and here comes the Big Brother.. and people just love them..
First they use morality.. and kick out some tech, just because they dont like them.. than they use all sorts of games to tell who are in and who are out.. but hey! the phone is in your pocket.. you should decide, not them
Its a company or its your priest? They are deciding your life for you... wake up.
Really, i dont want to have anything to do with apple, im a free spirit and i know better whats good for me, they just need to get out of our way.. but the state are also corrupted by the big companies.. they do nothing to stop that..because you know, politics and power is a expensive game to play.. and here comes the Big Brother.. and people just love them..
I didn't say I was okay with any of it -- in fact, I said the opposite ("[this] sucks"). However, it's also perfectly legal, as far as I can tell.
I guess I don't really get what consumer pressure is going to do, realistically speaking. The number of Bitcoin users (the users most likely to participate in this) is very small relative to the number of Apple users.
If you're interested, I'd be willing to make a $100 bet to the charity of the winner's choice that Apple will not reinstate Coinpunk anytime in the next three months.
I guess I don't really get what consumer pressure is going to do, realistically speaking. The number of Bitcoin users (the users most likely to participate in this) is very small relative to the number of Apple users.
If you're interested, I'd be willing to make a $100 bet to the charity of the winner's choice that Apple will not reinstate Coinpunk anytime in the next three months.
> However, it's also perfectly legal, as far as I can tell
There were civil rights before corporations even existed, so conciencious legislators, would see this as a matter of property..
If apple opens a centralized app store, (its in their right to do so) and create whatever criteria they want to allow or ban apps in their store, its also in their right to do so..
But there two things conscious legislators should propose:
* They must create a explicit written rule for what they ban and what they allow and stick with it .. this will also serve for apps that were banned without a proper reason to go to the court and make Apple put it back there (because it was not explicit in their rule, so they could not have kick them out)
* They must allow other app stores to offer apps, with their own rules.. they cannot force people that have already paid for their product to have only one store or source of applications they can go to.. cause this is, you know.. forced monopoly
If these two rules were granted as civil rights.. they couldnt hurt your freedom so bad.. but you now.. democracies are rotten all over the world.. they are not working anymore as they suppose to.. they are ill and weak.. monopolies are forming all over without no one to stand for our civil rights :/
There were civil rights before corporations even existed, so conciencious legislators, would see this as a matter of property..
If apple opens a centralized app store, (its in their right to do so) and create whatever criteria they want to allow or ban apps in their store, its also in their right to do so..
But there two things conscious legislators should propose:
* They must create a explicit written rule for what they ban and what they allow and stick with it .. this will also serve for apps that were banned without a proper reason to go to the court and make Apple put it back there (because it was not explicit in their rule, so they could not have kick them out)
* They must allow other app stores to offer apps, with their own rules.. they cannot force people that have already paid for their product to have only one store or source of applications they can go to.. cause this is, you know.. forced monopoly
If these two rules were granted as civil rights.. they couldnt hurt your freedom so bad.. but you now.. democracies are rotten all over the world.. they are not working anymore as they suppose to.. they are ill and weak.. monopolies are forming all over without no one to stand for our civil rights :/
You've made the point that they are making--Apple doesn't care about their customer's demands. They won't reinstate it, not because of some possible wishy-washy legal issue, but because they just don't care enough that some of their users want it.
When you get to Apple scale, worrying about sets of customers with cardinality less than about 5M is a pointless waste of time.
Fair enough, but this issue comes up consistently in many different areas and it has resulted in the the current app store stereotype of fickle, unfair and even schizophrenic.
Yeah, I agree with that but I think that's an opinion that only really holds amongst technical types. I suspect the vast majority of Apple's hundreds of millions of customers don't even know this kind of thing is happening. Or really care.
Its ok for you that they decide, what apps you can or cant have in a device you bought with your own money?
Libertarian response: yes, it's perfectly OK, so long as Apple did not use force or fraud to get me to buy their device and agree to their terms of service.
Next question?
Libertarian response: yes, it's perfectly OK, so long as Apple did not use force or fraud to get me to buy their device and agree to their terms of service.
Next question?
After you buy it, you can smash the device on a wall if you want? wouldnt you?
Now, what if Apple has expressely forbid you to do so.. would you think its fair?
What im trying to elucidate here, is the issue with ownership and property.. if you want to piss in your device you should be allowed to do it.. its yours..
But control what you can use, play or watch inside of your device is ok for you? i dont understand your logic..
Ok, so you are a conscious guy that dont buy the thing because you dont like the policy in it.. but then you need a new TV from JoeTV.. oh wait.. in their terms of service they dont allow your kids to watch TV after 8 PM..
Point being: If one can do it (and are not regulated), everyone else can.. a conscious minority not buying their products wont be even missed..
This is selfish and wont stop the big guys from abusing their power to abuse us
Now, what if Apple has expressely forbid you to do so.. would you think its fair?
What im trying to elucidate here, is the issue with ownership and property.. if you want to piss in your device you should be allowed to do it.. its yours..
But control what you can use, play or watch inside of your device is ok for you? i dont understand your logic..
Ok, so you are a conscious guy that dont buy the thing because you dont like the policy in it.. but then you need a new TV from JoeTV.. oh wait.. in their terms of service they dont allow your kids to watch TV after 8 PM..
Point being: If one can do it (and are not regulated), everyone else can.. a conscious minority not buying their products wont be even missed..
This is selfish and wont stop the big guys from abusing their power to abuse us
What im trying to elucidate here, is the issue with ownership and property
The problem you're missing is that many purchases are governed by contracts which can and sometimes do have obligations for the purchaser after the moment of purchase. Additionally, you only have the ability to operate certain software pursuant to the terms of a license agreement, which is yet another contract.
Do you feel you should have the right to breach contracts when you feel like it?
The problem you're missing is that many purchases are governed by contracts which can and sometimes do have obligations for the purchaser after the moment of purchase. Additionally, you only have the ability to operate certain software pursuant to the terms of a license agreement, which is yet another contract.
Do you feel you should have the right to breach contracts when you feel like it?
This is not the Libertarian response. Google and Apple are now stewards of a captive audience--namely smartphone users. They possess a partial monopoly that should be unrestricted to competing products using their platform. IE vs. other broswers, etc. Sure they are free to censor pornography or offensive content, but if they launch a porn service and restrict others from offering a competing app in their marketplace, that could definitely be anti-competitive. Sure, users could flee to the competing device... but what happens if Google decides to do the same?
Ok, but it is not very ethical. I bought their device with a good faith, that I will be able to perform most mobile computational needs with it - the device was advertised as such. Now, my need includes also to manage my crypto-currencies wealth, and Apple doesn't allow me to do that, without even properly explaining why.
Now, I can potentially lose money due to this policy. So, I agree it is legally ok, but not morally ok.
Now, I can potentially lose money due to this policy. So, I agree it is legally ok, but not morally ok.
I don't think anyone is forcing you to use an iPhone? They are well within their rights to decide what is and isn't acceptable on their devices. And you're well within your rights to buy something else. Or buy nothing (crazy concept, I know).
AFAI can tell they're not making a legal claim, they're asking for consumer pressure.
But if Walmart decides not to stock your item, there's still Target or somewhere else for a customer to go to to get it. But if Apple bans your app, the entire iOS userbase will never see it.
[deleted]
If Wal-Mart were the only store allowed in your city. And the Mayor worked for Wal-Mart.
Other wallet apps have been much more measured in their response to being removed from the store. Take the Coinjar folks response to Apple removing their app:
"Before you start DDOSing and trolling, Apple have done nothing wrong in this situation, they are just managing their own legal liability. We have had amicable discussions with them and hope they will support us in the future, when they have a more clear view of Bitcoin's place in their regulatory landscape." https://blog.coinjar.com/2014/01/09/coinjar-wallet-to-be-rem...
A petition will be ineffective, especially against Apple. The best way to show Apple it's a problem is by no longer being a customer & switching to another device. (I'm a long time Apple fan/user, but I now use a Nexus 5 partly to have more control over the apps I can install / use.)
"Before you start DDOSing and trolling, Apple have done nothing wrong in this situation, they are just managing their own legal liability. We have had amicable discussions with them and hope they will support us in the future, when they have a more clear view of Bitcoin's place in their regulatory landscape." https://blog.coinjar.com/2014/01/09/coinjar-wallet-to-be-rem...
A petition will be ineffective, especially against Apple. The best way to show Apple it's a problem is by no longer being a customer & switching to another device. (I'm a long time Apple fan/user, but I now use a Nexus 5 partly to have more control over the apps I can install / use.)
Apple is the -first operating system in the world- that can control what you can and cannot install on the physical hardware device you own. You literally have no choice but to jailbreak your own phone, which in itself has questionable legal grounds. People doing the jailbreaking are being hunted down like criminals. Being measured is how we got here, now it's time to speak out.
"The ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do." -Apple http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rwsuXHA7RA
"The ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do." -Apple http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rwsuXHA7RA
Apple isn't an OS, so I assume you're talking about iOS. iOS is pretty far from the first OS to control what you can install on it. In fact it was one of the first phone OS's that let you install anything at all.
...unless you count a decade of Palm and Windows Mobile letting you install apps.
I know, which is why I said one of the first rather than the first. Prior to iOS though, the vast majority of phones did not allow you to install apps. Palm and Windows Mobile had a very thin slice of the market.
But is CoinJar running a crowd-funding campaign? I don't think the solution to Apple banning bitcoin apps is to fund CoinPunk.
> they're banning Bitcoin apps to anti-competitively prop up their own payments service
I found it very hard to continue reading after this, because Apple doesn't have a payments service. Not that they really had anything other to say beyond this laughable claim.
I found it very hard to continue reading after this, because Apple doesn't have a payments service. Not that they really had anything other to say beyond this laughable claim.
If, and I stress that quite heavily, if Apple introduces a payment service, then we can revisit this topic. But Apple has never been known to pull apps from their store that compete with a potential future app of theirs. If Apple wants to take over a market, they'll do it when they enter that market. It runs counter to everything Apple to broadcast moves like this ahead of time.
Wouldn't a better way to make a point be to simply stop buying Apple products?
I'm a big Apple fan and I am disappointed in them. That they would be afraid of the legal consequences of Bitcoin apps is hogwash since they've fought tougher legal battles in the past (They even once pledged to protect developers against a patent troll too.). They are stifling a segment of innovation in the app marketplace. For shame Apple.
It was my understanding that the App Store version of blochchain.app was missing all wallet functionality and was just a read only transaction tracker. I've run the blockchain.info wallet app from Cydia for over a year and still using it today. Jailbreak while you still can.
Until they post their actual emails from Apple, I'm taking this with a massive grain of salt.
What payment service? Apple runs no payment service, nor has announced that they intend to in the future. There can't be "anti-competitor" action if they don't even have a competing product to begin with.