5 ms·

I don't think the section you quote tells the whole story > If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions,

I don't think the section you quote tells the whole story > 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. > Apps may use in-app purchase currencies to enable customers to “tip” the developer or digital content providers in the app. Using "must" for unlocking features and "may" for tipping is pretty odd if they need to be treated identically. This is especially clear if you look later in the document where an almost identical phrasing is used in the other direction: > If your app enables the purchase of real-time person-to-person services between two individuals you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. > If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments Certainly the person-to-person transactions aren't required to use purchase methods other than in-app purchase despite the use of "may" in the same context. This section could probably invalidate it although its extremely confusing because only "reader" apps (3.1.3(a)) are allowed to direct to other purchasing methods but physical goods apps are required not to use IAP. How would they avoid using IAP if they can't direct to other mechanisms? > 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).

cjpearson 3y ago
Yes, I think their phrasing in that sentence is vague. It should be structured like the functionality one to make clear that tipping _may_ be added, but if implemented it _must_ use in-app purchases. However, since tipping is not listed in the exceptions, one should read it as not being allowed.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  Agreed, from historical context it definitely seems like the intention was confirming for developers that tipping is a valid use case for IAP and not creating an exemption, but I can see why a motivated party would read it differently, and it is made even more confusing by the App Store review notice seemingly acknowledging that some tips are exempt.
chongli 3y ago
So can't people who want to offer an in-app "tip the developer" feature simply comply (without paying Apple's commission) by selling a token physical good such as a button, sticker, t-shirt, or other merchandise?
- newaccount74 3y ago
  It sounds like that should be allowed. But I think that fulfilling button, stickers and t-shirts orders is pretty expensive, and only makes sense if people give big tips (eg. if someone tips 5€, there's not going to be much left after you pay someone to mail them a sticker).
  - sigmar 3y ago
    "thank you for your button order. We expect to ship this order about 1 week after the heat death of the universe."
    - chongli 3y ago
      Or perhaps more realistically, tell them they can pick up their button when they come to meet you at the next DevCon.
jrmg 3y ago
I’m pretty sure person to person transactions (and any transactions for physical goods) _are_ required to use methods other than in-app purchase.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
enragedcacti 3y ago
I'm outside of the edit window on this comment otherwise I would make this more prominent, but way below in the "Other" section they do actually have a "monetary gift" rule that aligns with what the dev says: > (vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Considering that, the only other thing I could think Apple sees is that the tip partially goes to the developer, making (b) false. But then: https://twitter.com/damusapp/status/1673347949718548487 https://twitter.com/damusapp/status/1673347949718548487 Seems like the developer has a strong case, assuming these statements are truthful.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    > developer has a strong case Strong case? Apple can change the rules tomorrow to whatever they want.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      True. Apple can also choose to stand their ground, which would likely work if the developer doesn’t have the resources to fight a court battle. There may be other viable strategies for them to remove this application in whatever legally valid way. Still, a plaintext interpretation (as far as I can tell) of Apple’s current rules seems to favor the developer, given the circumstances.
      - scotty79 3y ago
        Why go to court instead of changing the rules the next day so that the app more obviously violates them and remove it anyways? What developer are gonna to go to court for the few weeks or months when his app was removed for ambiguous reasons? Terms and conditions mean nothing for Apple. They are solely to restrict developers how Apple wants. They give developers no rights in practice. Only the illusion.

cjpearson 3y ago

Yes, I think their phrasing in that sentence is vague. It should be structured like the functionality one to make clear that tipping _may_ be added, but if implemented it _must_ use in-app purchases. However, since tipping is not listed in the exceptions, one should read it as not being allowed.

enragedcacti 3y ago
Agreed, from historical context it definitely seems like the intention was confirming for developers that tipping is a valid use case for IAP and not creating an exemption, but I can see why a motivated party would read it differently, and it is made even more confusing by the App Store review notice seemingly acknowledging that some tips are exempt.

chongli 3y ago

So can't people who want to offer an in-app "tip the developer" feature simply comply (without paying Apple's commission) by selling a token physical good such as a button, sticker, t-shirt, or other merchandise?

newaccount74 3y ago
It sounds like that should be allowed. But I think that fulfilling button, stickers and t-shirts orders is pretty expensive, and only makes sense if people give big tips (eg. if someone tips 5€, there's not going to be much left after you pay someone to mail them a sticker).
- sigmar 3y ago
  "thank you for your button order. We expect to ship this order about 1 week after the heat death of the universe."
  - chongli 3y ago
    Or perhaps more realistically, tell them they can pick up their button when they come to meet you at the next DevCon.

jrmg 3y ago

I’m pretty sure person to person transactions (and any transactions for physical goods) _are_ required to use methods other than in-app purchase.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

enragedcacti 3y ago

I'm outside of the edit window on this comment otherwise I would make this more prominent, but way below in the "Other" section they do actually have a "monetary gift" rule that aligns with what the dev says: > (vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
Considering that, the only other thing I could think Apple sees is that the tip partially goes to the developer, making (b) false. But then: https://twitter.com/damusapp/status/1673347949718548487 https://twitter.com/damusapp/status/1673347949718548487 Seems like the developer has a strong case, assuming these statements are truthful.
- scotty79 3y ago
  > developer has a strong case Strong case? Apple can change the rules tomorrow to whatever they want.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    True. Apple can also choose to stand their ground, which would likely work if the developer doesn’t have the resources to fight a court battle. There may be other viable strategies for them to remove this application in whatever legally valid way. Still, a plaintext interpretation (as far as I can tell) of Apple’s current rules seems to favor the developer, given the circumstances.
    - scotty79 3y ago
      Why go to court instead of changing the rules the next day so that the app more obviously violates them and remove it anyways? What developer are gonna to go to court for the few weeks or months when his app was removed for ambiguous reasons? Terms and conditions mean nothing for Apple. They are solely to restrict developers how Apple wants. They give developers no rights in practice. Only the illusion.