8 ms·

The exchange is NFT for eth. In order to do that, it requires gas. That is a fee imposed on the user, meaning they have to pay something in order to pursue a di

The exchange is NFT for eth. In order to do that, it requires gas. That is a fee imposed on the user, meaning they have to pay something in order to pursue a digital transaction for digital goods. Payments in iOS for digital goods and services must go through the App Store. It's right there in the developer terms, and has largely not changed since the App Store was introduced. Doesn't matter that it's gas. It's a purchase the user is trying to make. The rules apply. Coinbase may think it's unfair, but that's what they agreed to when they put the app in the App Store. Apple can continue to enforce this rule as long as they're legally allowed to, which doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. No sympathy for Coinbase here. They chose to whine in public when they could just sue Apple like a grown up.

seydor 4y ago
Agreed. They should pull their wallets and become web-only. No sympathy for Coinbase or any other app participating in the system.
colordrops 4y ago
Public visibility helps their case by both pressuring apple and getting customers on their side. It's not whining, it's PR.
- alwillis 4y ago
  If Apple told the FBI to go pound sand in the San Bernardino shooter case, where the government wanted a back door to the iPhone, what makes you think they’re going to pressures by some crypto geeks?
  - sneak 4y ago
    That was coordinated marketing between the FBI and Apple. Apple does not have the power or authority to tell the USG to pound sand: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... There is already a backdoor in the iPhone, and Apple already preserves it for the FBI.
    - snowwrestler 4y ago
      For those who don’t know: you can fully encrypt your iPhone backups and store them locally on your computer if you prefer. You do not need to use iCloud backup to use an iPhone. You can also skip backups entirely if you want.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Yeah who do these crypto guys think they are the CCP?
    - Spivak 4y ago
      It's actually kinda funny because it's exactly right. The US has less power than the CCP to control Apple. Perks of being too big to fail. Apple doesn't bend the knee to the CCP -- gtfo. Apple doesn't bend the knee to the US gov't -- five years and a massive political battle later some Apple exec gets dragged to a congressional hearing to get mildly berated by a 70 year old white dude who doesn't even care outside of scoring some political points for the next midterm election and a fine, maybe? Not too big though, it can't actually hurt them because that's jobs and American business.
      - foogazi 4y ago
        > The US has less power than the CCP to control Apple. The US has the same power as the CCP, it’s just that the US & CCP legal frameworks are different
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > what makes you think they’re going to pressures by some crypto geeks? They wouldn't be the ones being pressured. Instead it would be lawmakers. The EU has already passed a law, and the USA is considering one, that has already passed out of committee. Governments can just start confiscating Apple's funds. What, is there going to be an Apple private military, that invades bank of America, and forces them at gone point to not follow a court order? Yeah no. The courts will order them to pay money, and the banks will send the money, no matter what Apple thinks. The Fines in EU would be something like 10% of global revenue. They can't ignore that.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
Apple store people just don't know how cryptocurrencies work. The gas fee doesn't go to Coinbase, it's going to completely random people, called miners or stakers. Why Coinbase should pay for the fees it doesn't receive?
- themagician 4y ago
  They don't need to know because it doesn't matter and they don't care. They see it as you buying a digital item. It doesn't matter to them if it's coins for virtual slots or NFTs—it's all the same. It's up to you to figure it out. Coinbase could, conceivably, charge you through the app store and then process the transaction for you. This would be a nightmare to do and defeat the "purpose" of crypto, but it's possible. One of the benefits of Apple's enforcement here is their extremely generous refund policy. If you ever buy something by accident (or even on purpose, really, and just later regret it) you can ask Apple for a refund and it's almost guaranteed they grant it. Obviously crypto users don't really think about refunds because nothing is reversible… although who knows, maybe they do. Honestly, Apple and Google should ban ALL software crypto wallets. No one is checking to see how secure they are. A seed generated on a software wallet may appear random to the user, but there is NO REASON AT ALL to believe that it is, and no way to verify that it is. IMO every iOS software wallet is compromised simply by virtue of the fact that it's impossible to know whether the seed was generated securely. I 100% guarantee you there will eventually be a massive "hack" on a major iOS software wallet which is nothing more than the person who wrote the code intentionally making it such that they know how the seed is generated. It would be trivial to generate seeds that appear random but are based on nothing more than a passphrase you know and a timestamp that you can increment over, allowing you at any time to generate all possible private keys for every wallet ever made with your app. That app is probably already out there and people are using it, blissfully unaware that at any time all their crypto could just disappear. If the attacker is smart they can later patch the app, remove their proprietary seed generation and no one will EVER know. They can drain wallets randomly and everyone will assume that the victim must be responsible for the compromised seed, when in reality it was compromised on generation. The attacker will never get caught. I would be honestly surprised if this isn't happening right now.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
function_seven 4y ago
Coinbase isn’t on the other end of this. Apple demanding 30% from gas fees would be like them taking that cut from every Venmo or PayPal transaction.
- s3p 4y ago
  exactly! this makes no sense to me. the rules are not being equally applied.
- LeeroyWasHere 4y ago
  They're not asking for the platform fee, they're asking for the underlying banking fee, they're essentially asking for fees from swift transfers coming out of your bank account. They've lost it.
varispeed 4y ago
How do banking apps work on iOS? If my friend sells me his vase and I pay him through banking app making a money transfer, does Apple get 30% cut?
- ncr100 4y ago
  No. A vase is a tangible real-world product. That falls under the "Apple Pay" contract route, and only if you want to use Apple Pay. This coinbase thing, afaik, is for a digital product. Coinbase could workaround all this if they simply launch a web browser to do the purchases, in my view.
  - varispeed 4y ago
    How would Apple know it wasn't just the picture of the vase? Would they scan my private messages between my friend to determine that?
croes 4y ago
Sue Apple? They have enough money to stretch any process until the opponents funds are empty.
- everfree 4y ago
  Not when your opponent is also a Fortune 500 company. Lawsuits don't stretch on that long.
  - 01acheru 4y ago
    Apple has more money, power and influence than Coinbase by orders of magnitude. If Coinbase doesn't have a really strong case (like it would be in this case) going to court would be a disaster.
    - everfree 4y ago
      Lawsuits of this sort don't really hinge on "power" or "influence", they hinge on legal arguments and precedent. As far as money goes, both companies have enough to be able to see a lawsuit through to completion. So it doesn't matter much that Apple has "more money, power and influence". Coinbase would either have a case or have no case, irrespective of those factors.
      - croes 4y ago
        Epic vs. Apple showed that money is a factor because after the decision come the appeals. Same happened during the SCO–Linux disputes.
      - 01acheru 4y ago
        I'm sorry but I don't trust the legal system to be so ideal as you do. From my point of view money first, and power and influence second, can bend anything to the favor of those who have them in our current society.
        everfree 4y ago
bsamuels 4y ago
If apologists like you ran the world, I would probably have to pay Apple 30% premium on the value of my entire house if I tried to sign mortgage paperwork on an iphone
- jerf 4y ago
  Oh, you can do better than that. You'd pay 30% on the mortgage, the seller would pay 30% on the mortgage, the title company would pay 30% on the mortgage, the listing agent would pay 30% on the listing.... my point here not merely being sarcasm, though it is that as well, but it isn't scalable to have every little person involved in facilitating some transaction trying to take 30%.
  - nomercy400 4y ago
    You mean like how the title company, listing agent, mortgage broker, notary etc. all take money from the simple transaction that should be just between buyer and seller? Same idea.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      You are free to hand a willing seller a few hundred thousand dollars in cash and submit the updated deeds to the county. Just be ready to deal with any problems yourself.
    - jerf 4y ago
      Generally they are taking money roughly proportional to the value being added. You may grumble, but as lotsofpulp also points out, you're welcome to do it yourself. If you didn't, you were presumably still OK with the money being spent. The existence of a reasonable self-serve option keeps the fees reasonable; they can't charge literally 30% of the mortgage for these fees because then everyone would just do it for themselves. (And some of those people would get good at it, and open new businesses that did it for you for a more reasonable price.) There is some inherent subjectivity to "roughly proportional to the value being added", but in my opinion, it becomes reasonably objective at some point when the value isn't being added. Not 100%, but reasonably so. I think part of the problem with Apple's policy here is that it is another example of trying to jam too large a set of cases into the roof of one policy, a pervasive problem right now with many Silicon Valley-style businesses that try to substitute expensive human insight with cheap computer code for economic decisions. There are perhaps cases where 30% is justified, because Apple is providing that much value to the target transaction. I'll leave that to the reader to decide. But there are clearly other sorts of transactions that were going to take place anyhow, and it basically just happens to be taking place through an app. Apple did not introduce any significant number of people to Coinbase by putting the Coinbase app on the store. It does not provide a huge amount of service to Coinbase on a per-transaction basis; Coinbase has the financial infrastructure, the technical infrastructure, etc. One way you can tell Apple is not terribly involved is, what are they responsible for in this case? Not very much; even if Apple totally vaporized and all Apple services disappeared, the user could still perform the target transaction on a different platform with virtually no effort. Contrast with the answer to "what if Coinbase totally vaporized and all their services disappeared?" This transaction would become impossible. For a transaction like this, where Apple did no marketing, where Apple provides essentially no irreplaceable technical service, where the transaction can trivially be done elsewhere and it is just happening to occur on Apple services, where the value flow doesn't need to involve Apple at all, a 30% charge seems outrageously large. I think some of the problem in debating this, and arguably all the way down to people understanding this, is that both these cases exist simultaneously, and they are both "true". There are apps that exist and thrive only because of Apple infrastructure, services, and promotion. 30% doesn't seem unreasonable, at least in the abstract. But other apps don't have anything like that service or support from Apple, but get hit with the exact same fee. This is the sort of thing that really starts to look like monopolistic rent seeking. (Or at least oligopolistic rent seeking.)
cmovq 4y ago
Is apple supposed to take 30% of the transaction fee when I purchase investments in an online banking app?
- ar_lan 4y ago
  I think this is a great question. Stocks and NFTs are largely the same in my eyes - but I can't imagine Fidelity even bothering with an iPhone app if they lost 30% of each transaction people make (unless it was solely on the fees - I'm not sure where Apple draws the lines). Also - does Apple take 30% from each Amazon purchase? I overwhelmingly just use the Amazon app for purchasing - I can't imagine the amount of money Apple makes from Amazon alone, if so.
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    No, physical goods are exempted.
    - ar_lan 4y ago
      Ah, that makes sense - why Kindle + Audible purchases have to be made on the web.
- cjensen 4y ago
  No because investments are not digital goods. Just because something is not physical does not mean it is digital. For example, a right to mine iron is not a physical thing, nor is it a digital thing; instead it is a legal thing.
- foogazi 4y ago
  It’s only for digital goods If Fidelity sold you app skins and customization features they’d have to pay
Fnoord 4y ago
There's a different reason Apple should block the feature: NFTs are a scam. I have zero interest in falling for scams, I want walled gardens to protect me from them. Unfortunately they did not use this reason.
- bloppe 4y ago
  I'm always fascinated by opinions like this.
- rybosworld 4y ago
  NFT's are no more a scam than any digital goods.
  - Fnoord 4y ago
    Yes, NFT proponents and those invested in the swindle try to imply such. They try to imply NFTs are worth anything outside their ecosystem. They try to imply this by relying on blockchain technology while in reality its centralized and there is no consensus on the intellectual property because the authority isn't verified. Its as if you run a digital notary which would rely on law to be enforced, but the law would only work within the notary vicinity. If I own the copy of the artwork (say a digital equivalent of a Picasso) because I made it or bought the rights from the owner then I will have that copy even when all NFTs are purged off the earth. And copyright law is recognized nearly worthwide while a NFT blockchain... is not.
- tigrezno 4y ago
  Be serious. You are refering to "Art NFTs". Yes, those are scams. But they are not all about art. Tickets as NFTs are an absolutely valid use for example, and many others.
rybosworld 4y ago
Did the apple employee who delisted coinbase wallet write this?
- ncr100 4y ago
  WOW that is rude @rybosworld.
electic 4y ago
This is not what is happening here. It's worse. If you want to send a NFT to another address, you need gas to complete the transaction. Coinbase does not get gas fees to complete the transaction. This isn't a swap. This isn't an exchange for ETH. Absurd and I've downvoted you.
pranau 4y ago
I’m disappointed to see such nonsense on HN not flagged to death. Is this a troll comment that I’m too slow to get?
jeroenhd 4y ago
You're completely right in that this is exactly what the app store rules will describe as a digital transaction. It also highlights the insanity of the app store rules. I though Facebook being blocked from showing the percentage of purchases being sent to Apple was peak ridiculousness, but this is yet another step.

seydor 4y ago

Agreed. They should pull their wallets and become web-only. No sympathy for Coinbase or any other app participating in the system.

colordrops 4y ago

Public visibility helps their case by both pressuring apple and getting customers on their side. It's not whining, it's PR.

alwillis 4y ago
If Apple told the FBI to go pound sand in the San Bernardino shooter case, where the government wanted a back door to the iPhone, what makes you think they’re going to pressures by some crypto geeks?
- sneak 4y ago
  That was coordinated marketing between the FBI and Apple. Apple does not have the power or authority to tell the USG to pound sand: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... There is already a backdoor in the iPhone, and Apple already preserves it for the FBI.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    For those who don’t know: you can fully encrypt your iPhone backups and store them locally on your computer if you prefer. You do not need to use iCloud backup to use an iPhone. You can also skip backups entirely if you want.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Yeah who do these crypto guys think they are the CCP?
  - Spivak 4y ago
    It's actually kinda funny because it's exactly right. The US has less power than the CCP to control Apple. Perks of being too big to fail. Apple doesn't bend the knee to the CCP -- gtfo. Apple doesn't bend the knee to the US gov't -- five years and a massive political battle later some Apple exec gets dragged to a congressional hearing to get mildly berated by a 70 year old white dude who doesn't even care outside of scoring some political points for the next midterm election and a fine, maybe? Not too big though, it can't actually hurt them because that's jobs and American business.
    - foogazi 4y ago
      > The US has less power than the CCP to control Apple. The US has the same power as the CCP, it’s just that the US & CCP legal frameworks are different
- stale2002 4y ago
  > what makes you think they’re going to pressures by some crypto geeks? They wouldn't be the ones being pressured. Instead it would be lawmakers. The EU has already passed a law, and the USA is considering one, that has already passed out of committee. Governments can just start confiscating Apple's funds. What, is there going to be an Apple private military, that invades bank of America, and forces them at gone point to not follow a court order? Yeah no. The courts will order them to pay money, and the banks will send the money, no matter what Apple thinks. The Fines in EU would be something like 10% of global revenue. They can't ignore that.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago

Apple store people just don't know how cryptocurrencies work. The gas fee doesn't go to Coinbase, it's going to completely random people, called miners or stakers. Why Coinbase should pay for the fees it doesn't receive?

themagician 4y ago
They don't need to know because it doesn't matter and they don't care. They see it as you buying a digital item. It doesn't matter to them if it's coins for virtual slots or NFTs—it's all the same. It's up to you to figure it out. Coinbase could, conceivably, charge you through the app store and then process the transaction for you. This would be a nightmare to do and defeat the "purpose" of crypto, but it's possible. One of the benefits of Apple's enforcement here is their extremely generous refund policy. If you ever buy something by accident (or even on purpose, really, and just later regret it) you can ask Apple for a refund and it's almost guaranteed they grant it. Obviously crypto users don't really think about refunds because nothing is reversible… although who knows, maybe they do. Honestly, Apple and Google should ban ALL software crypto wallets. No one is checking to see how secure they are. A seed generated on a software wallet may appear random to the user, but there is NO REASON AT ALL to believe that it is, and no way to verify that it is. IMO every iOS software wallet is compromised simply by virtue of the fact that it's impossible to know whether the seed was generated securely. I 100% guarantee you there will eventually be a massive "hack" on a major iOS software wallet which is nothing more than the person who wrote the code intentionally making it such that they know how the seed is generated. It would be trivial to generate seeds that appear random but are based on nothing more than a passphrase you know and a timestamp that you can increment over, allowing you at any time to generate all possible private keys for every wallet ever made with your app. That app is probably already out there and people are using it, blissfully unaware that at any time all their crypto could just disappear. If the attacker is smart they can later patch the app, remove their proprietary seed generation and no one will EVER know. They can drain wallets randomly and everyone will assume that the victim must be responsible for the compromised seed, when in reality it was compromised on generation. The attacker will never get caught. I would be honestly surprised if this isn't happening right now.
HDThoreaun 4y ago

function_seven 4y ago

Coinbase isn’t on the other end of this. Apple demanding 30% from gas fees would be like them taking that cut from every Venmo or PayPal transaction.

s3p 4y ago
exactly! this makes no sense to me. the rules are not being equally applied.
LeeroyWasHere 4y ago
They're not asking for the platform fee, they're asking for the underlying banking fee, they're essentially asking for fees from swift transfers coming out of your bank account. They've lost it.

varispeed 4y ago

How do banking apps work on iOS? If my friend sells me his vase and I pay him through banking app making a money transfer, does Apple get 30% cut?

ncr100 4y ago
No. A vase is a tangible real-world product. That falls under the "Apple Pay" contract route, and only if you want to use Apple Pay. This coinbase thing, afaik, is for a digital product. Coinbase could workaround all this if they simply launch a web browser to do the purchases, in my view.
- varispeed 4y ago
  How would Apple know it wasn't just the picture of the vase? Would they scan my private messages between my friend to determine that?

croes 4y ago

Sue Apple? They have enough money to stretch any process until the opponents funds are empty.

everfree 4y ago
Not when your opponent is also a Fortune 500 company. Lawsuits don't stretch on that long.
- 01acheru 4y ago
  Apple has more money, power and influence than Coinbase by orders of magnitude. If Coinbase doesn't have a really strong case (like it would be in this case) going to court would be a disaster.
  - everfree 4y ago
    Lawsuits of this sort don't really hinge on "power" or "influence", they hinge on legal arguments and precedent. As far as money goes, both companies have enough to be able to see a lawsuit through to completion. So it doesn't matter much that Apple has "more money, power and influence". Coinbase would either have a case or have no case, irrespective of those factors.
    - croes 4y ago
      Epic vs. Apple showed that money is a factor because after the decision come the appeals. Same happened during the SCO–Linux disputes.
    - 01acheru 4y ago
      I'm sorry but I don't trust the legal system to be so ideal as you do. From my point of view money first, and power and influence second, can bend anything to the favor of those who have them in our current society.
      - everfree 4y ago

bsamuels 4y ago

If apologists like you ran the world, I would probably have to pay Apple 30% premium on the value of my entire house if I tried to sign mortgage paperwork on an iphone

jerf 4y ago
Oh, you can do better than that. You'd pay 30% on the mortgage, the seller would pay 30% on the mortgage, the title company would pay 30% on the mortgage, the listing agent would pay 30% on the listing.... my point here not merely being sarcasm, though it is that as well, but it isn't scalable to have every little person involved in facilitating some transaction trying to take 30%.
- nomercy400 4y ago
  You mean like how the title company, listing agent, mortgage broker, notary etc. all take money from the simple transaction that should be just between buyer and seller? Same idea.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    You are free to hand a willing seller a few hundred thousand dollars in cash and submit the updated deeds to the county. Just be ready to deal with any problems yourself.
  - jerf 4y ago
    Generally they are taking money roughly proportional to the value being added. You may grumble, but as lotsofpulp also points out, you're welcome to do it yourself. If you didn't, you were presumably still OK with the money being spent. The existence of a reasonable self-serve option keeps the fees reasonable; they can't charge literally 30% of the mortgage for these fees because then everyone would just do it for themselves. (And some of those people would get good at it, and open new businesses that did it for you for a more reasonable price.) There is some inherent subjectivity to "roughly proportional to the value being added", but in my opinion, it becomes reasonably objective at some point when the value isn't being added. Not 100%, but reasonably so. I think part of the problem with Apple's policy here is that it is another example of trying to jam too large a set of cases into the roof of one policy, a pervasive problem right now with many Silicon Valley-style businesses that try to substitute expensive human insight with cheap computer code for economic decisions. There are perhaps cases where 30% is justified, because Apple is providing that much value to the target transaction. I'll leave that to the reader to decide. But there are clearly other sorts of transactions that were going to take place anyhow, and it basically just happens to be taking place through an app. Apple did not introduce any significant number of people to Coinbase by putting the Coinbase app on the store. It does not provide a huge amount of service to Coinbase on a per-transaction basis; Coinbase has the financial infrastructure, the technical infrastructure, etc. One way you can tell Apple is not terribly involved is, what are they responsible for in this case? Not very much; even if Apple totally vaporized and all Apple services disappeared, the user could still perform the target transaction on a different platform with virtually no effort. Contrast with the answer to "what if Coinbase totally vaporized and all their services disappeared?" This transaction would become impossible. For a transaction like this, where Apple did no marketing, where Apple provides essentially no irreplaceable technical service, where the transaction can trivially be done elsewhere and it is just happening to occur on Apple services, where the value flow doesn't need to involve Apple at all, a 30% charge seems outrageously large. I think some of the problem in debating this, and arguably all the way down to people understanding this, is that both these cases exist simultaneously, and they are both "true". There are apps that exist and thrive only because of Apple infrastructure, services, and promotion. 30% doesn't seem unreasonable, at least in the abstract. But other apps don't have anything like that service or support from Apple, but get hit with the exact same fee. This is the sort of thing that really starts to look like monopolistic rent seeking. (Or at least oligopolistic rent seeking.)

cmovq 4y ago

Is apple supposed to take 30% of the transaction fee when I purchase investments in an online banking app?

ar_lan 4y ago
I think this is a great question. Stocks and NFTs are largely the same in my eyes - but I can't imagine Fidelity even bothering with an iPhone app if they lost 30% of each transaction people make (unless it was solely on the fees - I'm not sure where Apple draws the lines). Also - does Apple take 30% from each Amazon purchase? I overwhelmingly just use the Amazon app for purchasing - I can't imagine the amount of money Apple makes from Amazon alone, if so.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  No, physical goods are exempted.
  - ar_lan 4y ago
    Ah, that makes sense - why Kindle + Audible purchases have to be made on the web.
cjensen 4y ago
No because investments are not digital goods. Just because something is not physical does not mean it is digital. For example, a right to mine iron is not a physical thing, nor is it a digital thing; instead it is a legal thing.
foogazi 4y ago
It’s only for digital goods If Fidelity sold you app skins and customization features they’d have to pay

Fnoord 4y ago

There's a different reason Apple should block the feature: NFTs are a scam. I have zero interest in falling for scams, I want walled gardens to protect me from them. Unfortunately they did not use this reason.

bloppe 4y ago
I'm always fascinated by opinions like this.
rybosworld 4y ago
NFT's are no more a scam than any digital goods.
- Fnoord 4y ago
  Yes, NFT proponents and those invested in the swindle try to imply such. They try to imply NFTs are worth anything outside their ecosystem. They try to imply this by relying on blockchain technology while in reality its centralized and there is no consensus on the intellectual property because the authority isn't verified. Its as if you run a digital notary which would rely on law to be enforced, but the law would only work within the notary vicinity. If I own the copy of the artwork (say a digital equivalent of a Picasso) because I made it or bought the rights from the owner then I will have that copy even when all NFTs are purged off the earth. And copyright law is recognized nearly worthwide while a NFT blockchain... is not.
tigrezno 4y ago
Be serious. You are refering to "Art NFTs". Yes, those are scams. But they are not all about art. Tickets as NFTs are an absolutely valid use for example, and many others.

rybosworld 4y ago

Did the apple employee who delisted coinbase wallet write this?

ncr100 4y ago
WOW that is rude @rybosworld.

electic 4y ago

This is not what is happening here. It's worse. If you want to send a NFT to another address, you need gas to complete the transaction. Coinbase does not get gas fees to complete the transaction. This isn't a swap. This isn't an exchange for ETH. Absurd and I've downvoted you.

pranau 4y ago

I’m disappointed to see such nonsense on HN not flagged to death. Is this a troll comment that I’m too slow to get?

jeroenhd 4y ago

You're completely right in that this is exactly what the app store rules will describe as a digital transaction. It also highlights the insanity of the app store rules. I though Facebook being blocked from showing the percentage of purchases being sent to Apple was peak ridiculousness, but this is yet another step.