18 ms·

Apple Tells Gliph to Remove App's Bitcoin Transfer Function

129 points by dcawrey 13y ago

oleganza 13y ago
At the same time, Apple openly allowed Blockchain wallet in Mac App Store. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/blockchain/id688882038 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/blockchain/id688882038
- cmsimike 13y ago
  The Mac desktop is a much less controlled environment. It doesn't help Apple to block a desktop app from their app store because if they do, the developer could release it outside of the dev store. Less apps in the app store means less apps Apple can say it has in the app store. On the other hand, realistically, the app store is the only way to get apps onto an iPhone for the general public. They can easily control things there because it's the app store or bust.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    It doesn't help Apple to block a desktop app from their app store because if they do, the developer could release it outside of the dev store. Safe to say that the ability to release unapproved applications on the Mac is now considered a bug by Apple, and being addressed accordingly.
    - Philadelphia 13y ago
      No, it's really not. Could you explain why you think that?
      - JohnTHaller 13y ago
        See Gatekeeper: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5290 http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5290 Used to be you could install any app you wanted. Now, Gatekeeper is set to deny apps from publishers that haven't paid the yearly Apple tax (aka 'registered' developers which costs $99 a year). Note that Gatekeeper has one additional setting which is app store only. Expect this to be the default in another year or two. Yes, you can adjust this setting yourself, but most users won't change it. This will kill off most hobbyist development on the Mac and a large percentage of open source apps (GPL apps, the most popular open source license, aren't permitted in the App Store).
        rmrfrmrf 13y ago
        Any Mac user who uses "hobby" apps knows how to edit their System Preferences. For people like my parents, who never use any third-party apps and routinely move the entire Safari app to their desktop (I think they think it's a shortcut or something lol), Gatekeeper is useful. I'm just glad they're off PCs now; the number of tech-support calls I get from them has dropped dramatically.
        JohnTHaller 13y ago
        I wonder what will happen to apps like Firefox when Apple switches Mac OS to App Store only by default and implement some of the restrictions in iOS in the Mac app store. Restrictions like no Javascript allowed. Sure, apps like Chrome can go the same route as they do on iOS and build a custom Chrome skin atop the slower Mobile Safari engine available to 3rd party apps and always be a slower 2nd place browser. But Firefox? If it's just another slower webkit skin, it's not Firefox. Which is why there's no Firefox on iOS.
        rplacd 13y ago
        Assuming none of the rest of the infrastructure'll change - I'd consider working with possibilities as future "when"s impractical enough; a user'll go download Firefox, the standard Gatekeeper denial message'll pop up: "Firefox" can't be opened because it was not downloaded from the Mac App Store. Your security preferences allow installation of only apps from the Mac App Store. Safari downloaded this file today at... And the user'll either trip over the message and give up in frustration - there will be a class of user who'll visually pattern-match, rather than engage with a meaningful back-and-forth with their computer - or pop into the System Preferences, find Security waiting for them, and off they go. Fairly banal, but by far and large that's because the assumption that switching the default to the MAS-only option would be a novel attempt at total exclusion shouldn't be true, give or take the major assumption outlined above: not so when the current default's in fact "Mac App Store and identified developers" - narrowing the locus of trusted sources, then, is a change that should happen independently of how easy it'll be to get an unsigned app running.
  - JohnTHaller 13y ago
    For now. Macs used to allow installs of apps from anyone. Gatekeeper is currently set to only permit installs from the app store and developers who have paid the yearly Apple tax by default now. ( http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5290 http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5290 ) In the next release or two, expect the Gatekeeper setting to be switched to app store only by default. Yes, you'll still be able to change it, but don't expect most users to.
untog 13y ago
Can't wait for Apple to start demanding 30% of all Bitcoin transactions performed on their platform.
3pt14159 13y ago
Bah. This is getting a bit out of hand. It is one thing to maintain quality of your app marketplace, but demanding that people remove features because you are ideologically against them is crazy.
- deweller 13y ago
  I believe Apple is monetarily opposed to these apps. My crystal ball says Apple will likely release their own wallet services in the future and when they do, they don't want any competition.
- tensafefrogs 13y ago
  I don't believe this is the result of an ideological belief. This is standard Apple app store policy that if you allow any sort of in-app purchases, they have to go through Apple.
  - fat0wl 13y ago
    well it's somewhat ideological, no? or do they allow Bitcoin payments for in-app purchases if you go through them? My feeling has been that the major companies don't want to acknowledge Bitcoin yet and are waiting a bit to see how things play out. Not supporting it for a while won't hurt them too much financially. They lose some transaction fees but don't have to support a new payment type.
  - MartinMcGirk 13y ago
    This is exactly right. Ever since they brought in in-app purchases to the app store they have required a 30% cut of everything. This isn't a dig at bitcoin specifically. My local bus service sells bus tickets through an iOS app and they have to give up 30% of the sale to Apple. Even major retailers like Amazon and B&N ended up removing in app purchases back in 2011 [1] to avoid Apple taking 30% of their business. They are not even allowed to link to their own web stores from their apps. Frankly I'm just amazed Gliph ever got that functionality in there in the first place. [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20082925-93/apple-forces-amazon-to-alter-kindle-app/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20082925-93/apple-forces-am...
dmix 13y ago
Fortunately the developer of CoinJoin built an HTML5 wallet which is unbannable by Apple: https://twitter.com/kyledrake/status/406604212009566208 https://twitter.com/kyledrake/status/406604212009566208
- lhgaghl 13y ago
  They could ban by heuristic or URL.
  - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
    Apple doesn't ban webapps per their policy.
    - lhgaghl 13y ago
      Can they change their policy?
      - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
        Of course, but Apple has explicitly stated that, if you want to make an app that goes against App Store guidelines, you're welcome to make a web app. Apple would have to be in the business of Internet filtering to change that policy, which I really do not see happening.
        lhgaghl 13y ago
        Meh. Was just pointing out that "unbannable by Apple" is inaccurate.
        dictum 13y ago
        When Apple was in the business of Internet filtering: KidSafe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGMQLfi0kGc&t=39m32s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGMQLfi0kGc&t=39m32s
- lukifer 13y ago
Houshalter 13y ago
This isn't what is what is happening here at all, but it gave me an idea. What if some person or organization with a lot of influence, like Apple, shorted on bitcoin, then banned it or did something to affect it's price. This can work the other way around too, encouraging bitcoin use to increase it's value, after buying a bunch of it.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  I'd imagine it'd go the same as the thousand other incidents of people trying to game commodity/currency markets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals#Black_Friday_Gold_Panic_1869 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_a...
  - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
    Looks like Fisk and Gould were relatively unaffected by it, the country at large suffered a great loss, and nobody was punished for it. My word, history does repeat itself, they were just shy a government handout and a multi-million dollar skiing trip.
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
Before grabbing your pitchforks (again), please take the time to read this article from Gliph that clearly states Apple's policy on why they prohibit Bitcoin: https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-applications-in-the-app-store-and-google-play/ https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-a... I really can't blame Apple for wanting to prevent potentially illegal content. When you allow that, you open yourself up to FBI raids, wiretapping, and other unplanned nuisances. Are there really full Bitcoin wallets on Android? I'm glad that Apple's strict guidelines at least partly force developers to employ smarter decisions regarding disk space, network usage, and battery life (traditional Bitcoin wallets download the entire block chain and constantly poll the network for updates).
- crazygringo 13y ago
  From Apple: “We found that your app contains content related to bitcoins – or facilitates, enables, or encourages an activity – that is not legal in all the locations in which the app is available, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines. But this is ridiculous. I can use my Citibank app, the PayPal app, or whatever else, to pay for things that might not be legal either. Square could facilitate me receiving money for illegal things. It's hard to see why these are all allowed, but Bitcoin isn't.
  - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
    The examples you gave don't use Bitcoin; they all use USD. The currency itself is illegal; we're not even talking about what you're doing with the currency. Bitcoin's legality is disputed in China, Thailand, and the state of California. Since Apple operates out of California, it makes sense that they would hesitate to allow such functionality on their apps. Edit for clarity: I interpret "facilitates, enables, or encourages an activity – that is not legal in all the locations in which the app is available" to mean that the act of making a Bitcoin transaction is illegal in certain jurisdictions.
    - dmix 13y ago
      It's not illegal to transfer money as a consumer with Bitcoin in California or the other places you mentioned. It's just illegal to do so without proper licencing if you run a financial business. Apple is just offering an app marketplace, they are not hosting BTC transfers or running a money-transfer business by letting Gliph be in the app store.
salient 13y ago
This is why I think it's insane when I see Bitcoin-based services built apps for iPhone first. How naive are they? It's obvious as night and day that Apple would try to ban Bitcoin apps if they try to get into payments themselves. We should try and stop them, of course, but why risk it by making iOS your first platform, and even your only platform for a while, if you you're building an app that has a very high chance of getting banned by Apple for arbitrary self-interested reasons.
- KentLatricia 13y ago
  Well to be fair, we released the same Bitcoin functionality for Android and Mobile Web at the same time. This was in May earlier this year (at Bitcoin 2013 in San Jose). We survived 8 iOS releases with Bitcoin functionality in the app store without hiding that functionality to Apple. (Gliph iOS Dev)
jljljl 13y ago
Off topic, but: >>Bitcoin skeptics don’t see the proof-of-work from mining as a good reason for there to significant value in the currency. Do Bitcoin proponents see this as a good reason for the currency to have significant value? Why?
- lukifer 13y ago
  Proof-of-work doesn't create the value; it enforces the rules of the protocol via incentives and consensus (essentially, one CPU = one vote). Any value is created entirely in people's heads. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up for debate.
- andrewla 13y ago
  I can't speak for all proponents, obviously. From my point of view, the proof-of-work from mining is a critical part of the value of the currency, since it enforces the scarcity, and the only reason any fungible good has value is because it is scarce. This is not unique to Bitcoin -- one of the primary reasons that USD has value is because the proof-of-work involved there; specifically, the ability to create an item that is not distinguishable from any other note of USD. If this were easy, then the dollar would be worthless, even though the actual task of "creating dollar bills" has no societal benefit other than securing the currency. (Not that you claimed it did; that is just a common objection that I am using as a strawman)
api 13y ago
Welcome to the wonderful world of feudalized devices. Relevant: http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html
sirkneeland 13y ago
Oh right, THIS is why it's not a good idea to use a system where a single corporation (and one predisposed to control-freakery at that) gives itself veto power over what your device can and cannot do. (not that "everybody go buy a Nexus 5" is the answer either. The only way to keep these corporations in check is a competitive platform marketplace with considerably more than two players. Go buy a Lumia, a Jolla, a Firefox phone, a Tizen phone...support diversity, kids)
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  Why not everyone go buy a Nexus 5? It looks open as phones go, you can just root it with adb[0]. As long as you can root the phone and swap in your own OS I think Google's phone is as good as any other. [0] http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Install_CM_for_hammerhead http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Install_CM_for_hammerhead Edit: I didn't read your post carefully enough. Yes, it would be wise to assume that Google will eventually become malicious and try to future-proof by supporting entities making comparably liberated phones.
  - sirkneeland 13y ago
    thanks for the edit. Indeed, my wariness of Google has increased as they have moved more and more of Android out of AOSP and into closed code that ties so closely with the Google mothership...
    - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
      Yes I actually feel the same, they look like they are plotting something (for lack of a better description). Locking down the OS would be a strong indicator for a future walled garden scheme and if it comes to that I am definitely done with them just like I am with Apple.
hoggle 13y ago
I've been a vocal supporter of most of Apple's policies over the years but they really are on the wrong side of history with this one. Apple should embrace change (think different!) by accepting bitcoins themselves and let related innovation thrive on the App Stores. In the end it's all about the digital wallet which means more sales of mobile devices. So please, dear Apple understand that the decentralized Internet of money is here. It won't go away so better get all in!
- midas007 13y ago
  Such dogma on Apple's part, taken to extreme, devoid of common-sense: the strangling innovation is a great way to push apps and their developer entourage to other platforms. There's curation and then there's disproportionate culture of "No."

129 points by dcawrey 13y ago

At the same time, Apple openly allowed Blockchain wallet in Mac App Store. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/blockchain/id688882038 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/blockchain/id688882038

cmsimike 13y ago
The Mac desktop is a much less controlled environment. It doesn't help Apple to block a desktop app from their app store because if they do, the developer could release it outside of the dev store. Less apps in the app store means less apps Apple can say it has in the app store. On the other hand, realistically, the app store is the only way to get apps onto an iPhone for the general public. They can easily control things there because it's the app store or bust.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  It doesn't help Apple to block a desktop app from their app store because if they do, the developer could release it outside of the dev store. Safe to say that the ability to release unapproved applications on the Mac is now considered a bug by Apple, and being addressed accordingly.
  - Philadelphia 13y ago
    No, it's really not. Could you explain why you think that?
    - JohnTHaller 13y ago
      See Gatekeeper: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5290 http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5290 Used to be you could install any app you wanted. Now, Gatekeeper is set to deny apps from publishers that haven't paid the yearly Apple tax (aka 'registered' developers which costs $99 a year). Note that Gatekeeper has one additional setting which is app store only. Expect this to be the default in another year or two. Yes, you can adjust this setting yourself, but most users won't change it. This will kill off most hobbyist development on the Mac and a large percentage of open source apps (GPL apps, the most popular open source license, aren't permitted in the App Store).
      - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
        Any Mac user who uses "hobby" apps knows how to edit their System Preferences. For people like my parents, who never use any third-party apps and routinely move the entire Safari app to their desktop (I think they think it's a shortcut or something lol), Gatekeeper is useful. I'm just glad they're off PCs now; the number of tech-support calls I get from them has dropped dramatically.
        JohnTHaller 13y ago
        I wonder what will happen to apps like Firefox when Apple switches Mac OS to App Store only by default and implement some of the restrictions in iOS in the Mac app store. Restrictions like no Javascript allowed. Sure, apps like Chrome can go the same route as they do on iOS and build a custom Chrome skin atop the slower Mobile Safari engine available to 3rd party apps and always be a slower 2nd place browser. But Firefox? If it's just another slower webkit skin, it's not Firefox. Which is why there's no Firefox on iOS.
        rplacd 13y ago
        Assuming none of the rest of the infrastructure'll change - I'd consider working with possibilities as future "when"s impractical enough; a user'll go download Firefox, the standard Gatekeeper denial message'll pop up: "Firefox" can't be opened because it was not downloaded from the Mac App Store. Your security preferences allow installation of only apps from the Mac App Store. Safari downloaded this file today at... And the user'll either trip over the message and give up in frustration - there will be a class of user who'll visually pattern-match, rather than engage with a meaningful back-and-forth with their computer - or pop into the System Preferences, find Security waiting for them, and off they go. Fairly banal, but by far and large that's because the assumption that switching the default to the MAS-only option would be a novel attempt at total exclusion shouldn't be true, give or take the major assumption outlined above: not so when the current default's in fact "Mac App Store and identified developers" - narrowing the locus of trusted sources, then, is a change that should happen independently of how easy it'll be to get an unsigned app running.
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  For now. Macs used to allow installs of apps from anyone. Gatekeeper is currently set to only permit installs from the app store and developers who have paid the yearly Apple tax by default now. ( http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5290 http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5290 ) In the next release or two, expect the Gatekeeper setting to be switched to app store only by default. Yes, you'll still be able to change it, but don't expect most users to.

untog 13y ago

Can't wait for Apple to start demanding 30% of all Bitcoin transactions performed on their platform.

3pt14159 13y ago

Bah. This is getting a bit out of hand. It is one thing to maintain quality of your app marketplace, but demanding that people remove features because you are ideologically against them is crazy.

deweller 13y ago
I believe Apple is monetarily opposed to these apps. My crystal ball says Apple will likely release their own wallet services in the future and when they do, they don't want any competition.
tensafefrogs 13y ago
I don't believe this is the result of an ideological belief. This is standard Apple app store policy that if you allow any sort of in-app purchases, they have to go through Apple.
- fat0wl 13y ago
  well it's somewhat ideological, no? or do they allow Bitcoin payments for in-app purchases if you go through them? My feeling has been that the major companies don't want to acknowledge Bitcoin yet and are waiting a bit to see how things play out. Not supporting it for a while won't hurt them too much financially. They lose some transaction fees but don't have to support a new payment type.
- MartinMcGirk 13y ago
  This is exactly right. Ever since they brought in in-app purchases to the app store they have required a 30% cut of everything. This isn't a dig at bitcoin specifically. My local bus service sells bus tickets through an iOS app and they have to give up 30% of the sale to Apple. Even major retailers like Amazon and B&N ended up removing in app purchases back in 2011 [1] to avoid Apple taking 30% of their business. They are not even allowed to link to their own web stores from their apps. Frankly I'm just amazed Gliph ever got that functionality in there in the first place. [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20082925-93/apple-forces-amazon-to-alter-kindle-app/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20082925-93/apple-forces-am...

dmix 13y ago

Fortunately the developer of CoinJoin built an HTML5 wallet which is unbannable by Apple: https://twitter.com/kyledrake/status/406604212009566208 https://twitter.com/kyledrake/status/406604212009566208

lhgaghl 13y ago
They could ban by heuristic or URL.
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  Apple doesn't ban webapps per their policy.
  - lhgaghl 13y ago
    Can they change their policy?
    - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
      Of course, but Apple has explicitly stated that, if you want to make an app that goes against App Store guidelines, you're welcome to make a web app. Apple would have to be in the business of Internet filtering to change that policy, which I really do not see happening.
      - lhgaghl 13y ago
        Meh. Was just pointing out that "unbannable by Apple" is inaccurate.
      - dictum 13y ago
        When Apple was in the business of Internet filtering: KidSafe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGMQLfi0kGc&t=39m32s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGMQLfi0kGc&t=39m32s
lukifer 13y ago

Houshalter 13y ago

This isn't what is what is happening here at all, but it gave me an idea. What if some person or organization with a lot of influence, like Apple, shorted on bitcoin, then banned it or did something to affect it's price. This can work the other way around too, encouraging bitcoin use to increase it's value, after buying a bunch of it.

quinnchr 13y ago
I'd imagine it'd go the same as the thousand other incidents of people trying to game commodity/currency markets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals#Black_Friday_Gold_Panic_1869 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_a...
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  Looks like Fisk and Gould were relatively unaffected by it, the country at large suffered a great loss, and nobody was punished for it. My word, history does repeat itself, they were just shy a government handout and a multi-million dollar skiing trip.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

Before grabbing your pitchforks (again), please take the time to read this article from Gliph that clearly states Apple's policy on why they prohibit Bitcoin: https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-applications-in-the-app-store-and-google-play/ https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-a... I really can't blame Apple for wanting to prevent potentially illegal content. When you allow that, you open yourself up to FBI raids, wiretapping, and other unplanned nuisances. Are there really full Bitcoin wallets on Android? I'm glad that Apple's strict guidelines at least partly force developers to employ smarter decisions regarding disk space, network usage, and battery life (traditional Bitcoin wallets download the entire block chain and constantly poll the network for updates).

crazygringo 13y ago
From Apple: “We found that your app contains content related to bitcoins – or facilitates, enables, or encourages an activity – that is not legal in all the locations in which the app is available, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines. But this is ridiculous. I can use my Citibank app, the PayPal app, or whatever else, to pay for things that might not be legal either. Square could facilitate me receiving money for illegal things. It's hard to see why these are all allowed, but Bitcoin isn't.
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  The examples you gave don't use Bitcoin; they all use USD. The currency itself is illegal; we're not even talking about what you're doing with the currency. Bitcoin's legality is disputed in China, Thailand, and the state of California. Since Apple operates out of California, it makes sense that they would hesitate to allow such functionality on their apps. Edit for clarity: I interpret "facilitates, enables, or encourages an activity – that is not legal in all the locations in which the app is available" to mean that the act of making a Bitcoin transaction is illegal in certain jurisdictions.
  - dmix 13y ago
    It's not illegal to transfer money as a consumer with Bitcoin in California or the other places you mentioned. It's just illegal to do so without proper licencing if you run a financial business. Apple is just offering an app marketplace, they are not hosting BTC transfers or running a money-transfer business by letting Gliph be in the app store.

salient 13y ago

This is why I think it's insane when I see Bitcoin-based services built apps for iPhone first. How naive are they? It's obvious as night and day that Apple would try to ban Bitcoin apps if they try to get into payments themselves. We should try and stop them, of course, but why risk it by making iOS your first platform, and even your only platform for a while, if you you're building an app that has a very high chance of getting banned by Apple for arbitrary self-interested reasons.

KentLatricia 13y ago
Well to be fair, we released the same Bitcoin functionality for Android and Mobile Web at the same time. This was in May earlier this year (at Bitcoin 2013 in San Jose). We survived 8 iOS releases with Bitcoin functionality in the app store without hiding that functionality to Apple. (Gliph iOS Dev)

jljljl 13y ago

Off topic, but: >>Bitcoin skeptics don’t see the proof-of-work from mining as a good reason for there to significant value in the currency. Do Bitcoin proponents see this as a good reason for the currency to have significant value? Why?

lukifer 13y ago
Proof-of-work doesn't create the value; it enforces the rules of the protocol via incentives and consensus (essentially, one CPU = one vote). Any value is created entirely in people's heads. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up for debate.
andrewla 13y ago
I can't speak for all proponents, obviously. From my point of view, the proof-of-work from mining is a critical part of the value of the currency, since it enforces the scarcity, and the only reason any fungible good has value is because it is scarce. This is not unique to Bitcoin -- one of the primary reasons that USD has value is because the proof-of-work involved there; specifically, the ability to create an item that is not distinguishable from any other note of USD. If this were easy, then the dollar would be worthless, even though the actual task of "creating dollar bills" has no societal benefit other than securing the currency. (Not that you claimed it did; that is just a common objection that I am using as a strawman)

api 13y ago

Welcome to the wonderful world of feudalized devices. Relevant: http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html

sirkneeland 13y ago

Oh right, THIS is why it's not a good idea to use a system where a single corporation (and one predisposed to control-freakery at that) gives itself veto power over what your device can and cannot do. (not that "everybody go buy a Nexus 5" is the answer either. The only way to keep these corporations in check is a competitive platform marketplace with considerably more than two players. Go buy a Lumia, a Jolla, a Firefox phone, a Tizen phone...support diversity, kids)

reginaldjcooper 13y ago
Why not everyone go buy a Nexus 5? It looks open as phones go, you can just root it with adb[0]. As long as you can root the phone and swap in your own OS I think Google's phone is as good as any other. [0] http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Install_CM_for_hammerhead http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Install_CM_for_hammerhead Edit: I didn't read your post carefully enough. Yes, it would be wise to assume that Google will eventually become malicious and try to future-proof by supporting entities making comparably liberated phones.
- sirkneeland 13y ago
  thanks for the edit. Indeed, my wariness of Google has increased as they have moved more and more of Android out of AOSP and into closed code that ties so closely with the Google mothership...
  - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
    Yes I actually feel the same, they look like they are plotting something (for lack of a better description). Locking down the OS would be a strong indicator for a future walled garden scheme and if it comes to that I am definitely done with them just like I am with Apple.

hoggle 13y ago

I've been a vocal supporter of most of Apple's policies over the years but they really are on the wrong side of history with this one. Apple should embrace change (think different!) by accepting bitcoins themselves and let related innovation thrive on the App Stores. In the end it's all about the digital wallet which means more sales of mobile devices. So please, dear Apple understand that the decentralized Internet of money is here. It won't go away so better get all in!

midas007 13y ago
Such dogma on Apple's part, taken to extreme, devoid of common-sense: the strangling innovation is a great way to push apps and their developer entourage to other platforms. There's curation and then there's disproportionate culture of "No."