“Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies”

https://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guidelines.html

by ca98am79 • 12 years ago

257 88 12 years ago

developer.apple.com

"11.17 Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions"

ca98am79• 12 years ago

Section 11.17

Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions

jpmattia3• 12 years ago

"of approved virtual currencies"

... which begs the question: Are there approved virtual currencies? I'd also be curious whether litecoin is on that list as well.

gtirloni2• 12 years ago

So largely the US is out since the Fed said Bitcoin is not a currency, right? Or the term "virtual" makes it not required to be approved by the Fed? Who is the approver then?

hookey• 12 years ago

I'm guessing Apple approves them, because other sections mention approving as well.

r00fus• 12 years ago

Could be wording that allows Apple to blacklist future virtual currencies as needed (i.e., mmorpg credits).

fragsworth• 12 years ago

Yeah - But there is absolutely no reference to "bitcoin", "crypto", "coin", or anything remotely associated with these things.

They are really inconsistent with their rules, so I have my doubts until they make a clear statement about it.

arasmussen2• 12 years ago

Time to spend the next 24 hours hacking on a Bitcoin app. Any suggestions?

k0mplex• 12 years ago

Whatever it is, the Chain.com API will make it easy to build quickly =)

arasmussen2• 12 years ago

Wow, they bought chain.com? They aren't fucking around.

aw3c2• 12 years ago

Flappy Coin: You pledge a small amount of imaginary money before launching a game. For each gate you fly through, the sum gets smaller. The longer you manage to play, the less money you lose. Target 14 year olds with "Bitcoin YOLO, are you cool enough to gamble?" Teaches them how Kevin's negative funny fail record from a week ago is nothing to boast about because the bubble burst and he only lost 2 cents, not 5 dollars. LOL, what a wanker!

slipstream-• 12 years ago

fun fact: there's already an altcoin called flappycoin.

javert5• 12 years ago

Bitcoin isn't a "virtual currency," it's a "digital currency." "Virtual" means "simulated." Money in video games is "virtual currency."

jpmattia3• 12 years ago

Even though your definition might be more precise/sensible, bitcoin as "virtual currency" is a term-of-art at this point: Both FinCEN and the ECB have defined virtual currencies to include bitcoin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_currency

dragonwriter6• 12 years ago

Bitcoin isn't a "virtual currency," it's a "digital currency."

Maybe to you, but not to, e.g., the US Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). See definitions at: http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001....

The FinCEN definition is probably more widely used than whatever rule you are using that excludes Bitcoin as a virtual currency.

javert5• 12 years ago

FinCEN is incorrect. Go look up the definition and history of the word "virtual." And I've been making this point since before FinCEN started caring about bitcoin.

I don't know if you understand that the government does not create truth.

baddox• 12 years ago

"Virtual" means "simulated."

According to whom? I usually hear it used to mean "existing in an electronic form."

javert5• 12 years ago

"Virtual" is a much broader term than that with a long history. And in everyday English, it is typically used in accordance with that history.

It's confusing because a lot of stuff on the computer is virtual---but not all.

For instance, we don't call nytimes.com a "virtual newspaper" and we don't call Internet fora like this one "virtual fora".

The world of Warcraft is a "virtual world" because it is a simulation of a world.

gamblor956• 12 years ago

If you're going to argue semantics, you need to make sure that you get the semantics correct.

The most common use of "virtual" is "being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted" (from Merriam Webster Dictionary). By this, the most common definition, Bitcoin is most definitely a "virtual currency".

bcl• 12 years ago

There is no mention of Bitcoin in this document. The title should be corrected.

dang• 12 years ago

Title changed from "Apple now allows Bitcoin-transmitting apps" because the article does not mention Bitcoin.

andrewla• 12 years ago

Does anyone have historical snapshots of this document for comparison with previous statements about virtual currencies? The Wayback machine appears to only have redirects to the developer login page here. This is being presented as a change, but without a previous version I don't see how we can consider it one -- the language might be unchanged but have been interpreted strictly by the review process, for example by defining "approved" very narrowly.

Off-topic, but I notice that the guidelines prohibit buttons for external purchase of in-app content, but as I recall, they used to prohibit buttons for external purchase of any digital content; why is why the Amazon app could not sell Kindle versions of books. I would be curious to see whether there is a change in policy or if Amazon was either being overly cautious or the restrictions were being applied more severely than a literal reading would indicate.

smackfu• 12 years ago

This post has some text of rejections from Apple in the past: https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-a...

They used the generic "this is not legal in all jurisdictions" clause.

pietro• 12 years ago

So it depends on which stores you submit the app to? Makes sense – and should be relatively easy to figure out.

duskwuff• 12 years ago

Here's a plain text snapshot as of February 12, 2014:

https://woofle.net/appstore-20140212.txt

Holbein2• 12 years ago

What about flattr? Apple denied podcast apps that had a flattr button before... is this now ok again as well?

sp332• 12 years ago

That might have been banned for making an in-app purchase without giving Apple their cut.

Holbein2• 12 years ago

No, flattr cannot be used for in-app purchases. The idea behind flattr is that you voluntarily honor a podcast (or some other work that somebody has created and put online) by putting them on your personal list of people that will get a fraction of some amount you decided to donate at the end of the month.

The key concepts being "voluntarily donate" and "not a fixed amount", which differentiates flattr completely from in-app-purchases.

Apple was apparently uncomfortable with such a strange concept that it could not bring into line with its capitalistic mindset, and promptly banned it.

Sad to hear that Apple hasn't changed its mind on this front.

johnrob• 12 years ago

This document reads like an enumerated list of why the web is better than apps for most things. Unfortunately, apps will likely prevail until OS producers work directly to empower the mobile web.

general_failure• 12 years ago

Indeed.

It also contains a severe condescending tone how 'big daddy' is doing all this for our own well being. And of course, think of all the children!

kordless• 12 years ago

It's a blaming tone. "And we think that you will also know it when you cross it." is a statement that will assuredly not be true for everyone whom they believe 'crossed a line'.

dmvaldman• 12 years ago

https://famo.us

malandrew• 12 years ago

Since it's probably past the point of being editable, I just want to put the standard "conflict of interest"/"shameless plug" disclaimer on this parent comment, since it was posted by one of my colleagues at famo.us. We'll make sure to better disclose these things next time.

That being said, the approaches we're exploring with famo.us (a retain-mode scene graph) is absolutely essential for allowing web apps to compete with native apps. This approach is often overlooked by web developers who grew up on the web and are not familiar with how native windowing and retain-mode UI systems function.

x1798DE2• 12 years ago

I don't think that Apple's walled garden approach to iOS apps applies to other OSes. Android has multiple alternative app stores and allows direct installation of app files without rooting.

And, frankly, I would hope that in general that apps win. Not the kinds of apps that are just a wrapper for a website necessarily, but for a great many things I'd prefer an app running on my hardware in a way that I can control with things like a firewall to some sort of cloud solution that I'm accessing through a browser.

dragonwriter6• 12 years ago

I don't think that Apple's walled garden approach to iOS apps applies to other OSes.

Windows Phone 8.1 & Windows RT 8.1?

coldtea• 12 years ago

apps will likely prevail until OS producers work directly to empower the mobile web

So you want web apps that are not web apps (with special hooks to the hardware and native features etc).

Having your cake and eating it too in other words.

heroprotagonist• 12 years ago

There's no point having cake if you can't eat it.

teraflop• 12 years ago

So you want web apps that are not web apps (with special hooks to the hardware and native features etc).

Is that an unreasonable thing to expect? HTML touch events are provided by a special hook to the hardware and/or OS. The same applies to audio/video elements, WebGL, geolocation, websockets, and any number of other APIs. That's just how the web platform has been developing, and there's no reason to think it will stop.

crazy1van• 12 years ago

This list of rules seems like a case of ban everything with selective enforcement. Then if Apple ends up wanting to remove an app, the app has surely broken at least one rule.

outside1234• 12 years ago

"If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."

subtitles: "do not exercise your 1st amendment rights or else."

jonny_eh3• 12 years ago

1st amendment rights only apply to the government.

kefka2• 12 years ago

And government grants corporate charters. They, and we need to remember this fact.

And, corporations can be unmade as a punishment.

Houshalter• 12 years ago

No one is claiming that it's illegal. People can give up their rights as long as it's voluntary. It's generally seen as wrong or socially unacceptable to require that though.

mullingitover4• 12 years ago

subtitles: "do not exercise your 1st amendment rights or else."

Thank you for this textbook example of the common misunderstanding that the 1st Amendment protects people from all consequences of their speech.

logfromblammo4• 12 years ago

The 1st Amendment restricts the laws that Congress may pass. Corporations are (in most jurisdictions) formed as a privilege granted by law, and foreign corporations are licensed to operate by law.

Of course, that relies upon strict logic, when the justice system relies somewhat upon political expediency and kritarchic traditions.

If you believe that free speech is a basic human right, common to all natural persons, then any consequence of any speech, no matter how odious or damaging, is preferable to the consequence of attempting to alter or stifle the words before they are said. But the former can be seen, and the latter cannot.

We cannot know the value of speech left unsaid for fear of retaliation.

So while the U.S. foundation law does not explicitly protect freedom of speech from any entity other than the U.S. governments, its commercial codes and corporations laws do govern the behavior of incorporated businesses, so in theory, they should contain provisions for stripping away corporate privileges as punishment for engaging in behaviors denied to the government, or be considered unconstitutional otherwise.

Such arguments are not likely to go far in the courts, however. Quite a lot of judges own stock in at least one corporation.

If you say something I don't like, I can hold it against you personally, and I can direct my unincorporated businesses to do likewise. But I cannot direct a corporation's resources towards viewpoint-based discrimination, even if I own 100% of the voting stock.

The realpolitik is that so long as your business makes the proper political campaign contributions, major offenses become minor, and minor offenses are overlooked. Really, the common misunderstanding is that politicians pay more heed to the constitution than their own interests.

mikeash• 12 years ago

It's also just plain wrong. There are many cases where running to the press has been the solution.

steffenfrost• 12 years ago

The coinpocket html5 web app renders this issue moot.

rsynnott• 12 years ago

Spoiler: The only approved currency is Dogecoin.

MBCook• 12 years ago

To the moon!

Seriously though, I'm a little surprise to see Apple do this. It will be interesting to see if they actually approve any currency, or if this is just a hedge they can use to keep Bitcoin (etc.) apps out of the store but let you trade EBay Bucks and Linden Dollars.

kolev• 12 years ago

"Cryptocurrency" is a misnomer. Bitcoin is an asset and even its biggest supporters agree with that. "Cryptoasset" - yes, "virtual currency" - no.

spacemanmatt• 12 years ago

Would it suffice at all for Apple to make the same assertions over your financial practices using say, a browser that runs on OS X?

I'm going to ruminate on this one a bit but I don't like it.

jlarocco• 12 years ago

OT, but: "We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour."

Really? Searching for "fart" in the app store just returned 969 results. Give me a break.

bobbles• 12 years ago

969 out of 1.2 million

ok_craig• 12 years ago

That's almost a tenth of a percent. For just the word "fart" alone that is pretty high.

mhartl• 12 years ago

To be fair, they do mention this issue:

2.11 Apps that duplicate Apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them, such as fart, burp, flashlight, and Kama Sutra Apps

FatalLogic3• 12 years ago

2.11 Apps that duplicate Apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them, such as fart, burp, flashlight, and Kama Sutra Apps

Interesting. It looks like Apple may be trying to clean up the market by encouraging devs to consolidate these critical functions in one app

thinkcomp• 12 years ago

"...with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions"

Total United States Bitcoin companies that meet this criterion: zero.

pling2• 12 years ago

Oh how blessed are we that the landlords allow such mischief...

Seriously people are pissing themselves all over with these announcements as if they weren't possible before.

chillingeffect• 12 years ago

Oh how blessed are we that the landlords allow such mischief...

That's a fantastic quote! I couldn't find it via DDG, Yahoo and Google. Is that original to you? It really resonates with me.

pling2• 12 years ago

I may have heard it somewhere so I can't claim originality but it came out of my head at the time in a sarcastic rage.

kristianp• 12 years ago

Combined with these clauses, You clearly can't use virtual currencies to purchase in-app items, but you possibly could use them to buy real-world items and also other virtual currencies?

11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In-App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an App will be rejected 11.3 Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the App will be rejected

FatalLogic3• 12 years ago

It appears that this bitcoin wallet app, which the developer previously announced was being removed by Apple, was quietly reinstated in the iTunes store sometime recently.

(I only say "appears" because it's hard to know if and when it was removed.) Anyway, the app's features do now include 'Send and receive payments'

https://blog.coinjar.com/2014/01/09/coinjar-wallet-to-be-rem...

https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/coinjar-for-iphone/id7252098...

FatalLogic3• 12 years ago

The same app is about to become available in Apple's app stores in Europe and parts of Asia (no US, though)

So it now seems even more likely that there this is a real shift in policy and Apple is considerably more positive toward bitcoin payment apps now: http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/276w8l/just_sent_some_b...

dinkumthinkum• 12 years ago

What I found interesting was the style of this document. This is much less formal than what I would expect front Apple, it's sort of jarring ... "brace yourselves" ... I doubt this would have gotten through in days of old.

joshdance• 12 years ago

Someone should resubmit their bitcoin app and see if it passes this time.

“Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies”

Related Stories