12 ms·

“Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies”

257 points by ca98am79 12y ago

"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"

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ca98am79 12y 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
- jpmattia 12y 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.
  - gtirloni 12y 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?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      "Approved" in the Apple rules probably means by Apple, not by someone else.
    - jpmattia 12y ago
      > So largely the US is out since the Fed said Bitcoin is not a currency, right? I guess I missed that. I remember the IRS said bitcoin would be taxed using non-currency rules, but the specifics of how something is taxed doesn't necessarily impact whether Apple "approves" it as a virtual currency.
      - gtirloni 12y ago
        I wasn't even criticizing Bitcoin and got downvoted already? Aww.. I was talking about this, which amounts to almost the same thing: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/02/27/yellen-on-bitcoin-fed-doesnt-have-authority-to-regulate-it-in-any-way/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/02/27/yellen-on-bitcoin-...
    - billyarzt 12y ago
      Per the IRS Bitcoin is taxable property http://online.wsj.com/articles/lawrence-parks-bitcoins-futile-quest-to-be-a-currency-1401661605 http://online.wsj.com/articles/lawrence-parks-bitcoins-futil...
  - hookey 12y ago
    I'm guessing Apple approves them, because other sections mention approving as well.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    Could be wording that allows Apple to blacklist future virtual currencies as needed (i.e., mmorpg credits).
- fragsworth 12y 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.
arasmussen 12y ago
Time to spend the next 24 hours hacking on a Bitcoin app. Any suggestions?
- k0mplex 12y ago
  Whatever it is, the Chain.com API will make it easy to build quickly =)
  - arasmussen 12y ago
    Wow, they bought chain.com? They aren't fucking around.
- aw3c2 12y 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- 12y ago
    fun fact: there's already an altcoin called flappycoin.
javert 12y ago
Bitcoin isn't a "virtual currency," it's a "digital currency." "Virtual" means "simulated." Money in video games is "virtual currency."
- jpmattia 12y 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_currency
- dragonwriter 12y 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.html 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.
  - javert 12y 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.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > FinCEN is incorrect. No, they aren't. > Go look up the definition and history of the word "virtual." Even if that supported your argument (which it doesn't, see next paragraph), it wouldn't matter, because the meanings of phrases aren't necessarily determined by the meanings and/or history of the component words in isolation. But FinCEN's definition of "virtual currency" is consistent with the common definition of "virtual". Their definition of "virtual currency" is exactly the #1 definition of virtual [1] applied to the uncontroversial definition of "currency". (And calling Bitcoin virtual currency would also be consistent with definition #4, particularly definition #4a, though some non-electronic entities that would meet FinCEN's definition would be excluded by that definition.) > And I've been making this point since before FinCEN started caring about bitcoin. You being wrong for a long time doesn't make you any less wrong. > I don't know if you understand that the government does not create truth. I don't know if you understand that legal definitions established by government do create meanings that are used in legal documents such as contracts, terms of service, etc., whether or not they are "truth" in some abstract, idealized sense. [1] from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual
bcl 12y ago
There is no mention of Bitcoin in this document. The title should be corrected.
dang 12y ago
Title changed from "Apple now allows Bitcoin-transmitting apps" because the article does not mention Bitcoin.
andrewla 12y 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 12y 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-applications-in-the-app-store-and-google-play/ 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 12y ago
    So it depends on which stores you submit the app to? Makes sense – and should be relatively easy to figure out.
- duskwuff 12y ago
  Here's a plain text snapshot as of February 12, 2014: https://woofle.net/appstore-20140212.txt https://woofle.net/appstore-20140212.txt
Holbein 12y ago
What about flattr? Apple denied podcast apps that had a flattr button before... is this now ok again as well?
- sp332 12y ago
  That might have been banned for making an in-app purchase without giving Apple their cut.
  - Holbein 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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!
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - kordless 12y 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 12y ago
  https://famo.us https://famo.us
  - malandrew 12y 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.
- x1798DE 12y 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.
outside1234 12y ago
"If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps." subtitles: "do not exercise your 1st amendment rights or else."
- mullingitover 12y 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.
  - logfromblammo 12y 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.
steffenfrost 12y ago
The coinpocket html5 web app renders this issue moot.
rsynnott 12y ago
Spoiler: The only approved currency is Dogecoin.
- MBCook 12y 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 12y ago
"Cryptocurrency" is a misnomer. Bitcoin is an asset and even its biggest supporters agree with that. "Cryptoasset" - yes, "virtual currency" - no.
spacemanmatt 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
  969 out of 1.2 million
  - ok_craig 12y ago
    That's almost a tenth of a percent. For just the word "fart" alone that is pretty high.
- mhartl 12y 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
  - FatalLogic 12y 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 12y 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.
pling 12y 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 12y 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.
  - pling 12y 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 12y 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
FatalLogic 12y 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-removed-from-app-store/ https://blog.coinjar.com/2014/01/09/coinjar-wallet-to-be-rem... https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/coinjar-for-iphone/id725209873 https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/coinjar-for-iphone/id7252098...
- FatalLogic 12y 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_btc_from_my_iphone_with_the/chxyq5l http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/276w8l/just_sent_some_b...
dinkumthinkum 12y 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 12y ago
Someone should resubmit their bitcoin app and see if it passes this time.

257 points by ca98am79 12y ago

"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"

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ca98am79 12y 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

jpmattia 12y 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.
- gtirloni 12y 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?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    "Approved" in the Apple rules probably means by Apple, not by someone else.
  - jpmattia 12y ago
    > So largely the US is out since the Fed said Bitcoin is not a currency, right? I guess I missed that. I remember the IRS said bitcoin would be taxed using non-currency rules, but the specifics of how something is taxed doesn't necessarily impact whether Apple "approves" it as a virtual currency.
    - gtirloni 12y ago
      I wasn't even criticizing Bitcoin and got downvoted already? Aww.. I was talking about this, which amounts to almost the same thing: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/02/27/yellen-on-bitcoin-fed-doesnt-have-authority-to-regulate-it-in-any-way/ http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/02/27/yellen-on-bitcoin-...
  - billyarzt 12y ago
    Per the IRS Bitcoin is taxable property http://online.wsj.com/articles/lawrence-parks-bitcoins-futile-quest-to-be-a-currency-1401661605 http://online.wsj.com/articles/lawrence-parks-bitcoins-futil...
- hookey 12y ago
  I'm guessing Apple approves them, because other sections mention approving as well.
- r00fus 12y ago
  Could be wording that allows Apple to blacklist future virtual currencies as needed (i.e., mmorpg credits).
fragsworth 12y 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.

arasmussen 12y ago

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

k0mplex 12y ago
Whatever it is, the Chain.com API will make it easy to build quickly =)
- arasmussen 12y ago
  Wow, they bought chain.com? They aren't fucking around.
aw3c2 12y 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- 12y ago
  fun fact: there's already an altcoin called flappycoin.

javert 12y ago

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

jpmattia 12y 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_currency
dragonwriter 12y 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.html 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.
- javert 12y 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.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > FinCEN is incorrect. No, they aren't. > Go look up the definition and history of the word "virtual." Even if that supported your argument (which it doesn't, see next paragraph), it wouldn't matter, because the meanings of phrases aren't necessarily determined by the meanings and/or history of the component words in isolation. But FinCEN's definition of "virtual currency" is consistent with the common definition of "virtual". Their definition of "virtual currency" is exactly the #1 definition of virtual [1] applied to the uncontroversial definition of "currency". (And calling Bitcoin virtual currency would also be consistent with definition #4, particularly definition #4a, though some non-electronic entities that would meet FinCEN's definition would be excluded by that definition.) > And I've been making this point since before FinCEN started caring about bitcoin. You being wrong for a long time doesn't make you any less wrong. > I don't know if you understand that the government does not create truth. I don't know if you understand that legal definitions established by government do create meanings that are used in legal documents such as contracts, terms of service, etc., whether or not they are "truth" in some abstract, idealized sense. [1] from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual

bcl 12y ago

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

dang 12y ago

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

andrewla 12y 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 12y 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-applications-in-the-app-store-and-google-play/ 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 12y ago
  So it depends on which stores you submit the app to? Makes sense – and should be relatively easy to figure out.
duskwuff 12y ago
Here's a plain text snapshot as of February 12, 2014: https://woofle.net/appstore-20140212.txt https://woofle.net/appstore-20140212.txt

Holbein 12y ago

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

sp332 12y ago
That might have been banned for making an in-app purchase without giving Apple their cut.
- Holbein 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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!
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- kordless 12y 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 12y ago
https://famo.us https://famo.us
- malandrew 12y 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.
x1798DE 12y 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.

outside1234 12y ago

"If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps." subtitles: "do not exercise your 1st amendment rights or else."

mullingitover 12y 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.
- logfromblammo 12y 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.

steffenfrost 12y ago

The coinpocket html5 web app renders this issue moot.

rsynnott 12y ago

Spoiler: The only approved currency is Dogecoin.

MBCook 12y 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 12y ago

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

spacemanmatt 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
969 out of 1.2 million
- ok_craig 12y ago
  That's almost a tenth of a percent. For just the word "fart" alone that is pretty high.
mhartl 12y 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
- FatalLogic 12y 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 12y 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.

pling 12y 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 12y 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.
- pling 12y 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 12y 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

FatalLogic 12y 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-removed-from-app-store/ https://blog.coinjar.com/2014/01/09/coinjar-wallet-to-be-rem... https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/coinjar-for-iphone/id725209873 https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/coinjar-for-iphone/id7252098...

FatalLogic 12y 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_btc_from_my_iphone_with_the/chxyq5l http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/276w8l/just_sent_some_b...

dinkumthinkum 12y 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 12y ago

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