Hacker News Reader

Comment by pervycreeper | Hacker News Reader

Because they want to be able to take their 30% slice. Not so mysterious.

Apple does not take 30% of things purchased through apps that are not meant for consumption IN those apps.

For instance, if you buy movies tickets through an app, Apple does not get a cut. If you buy a computer through Newegg's app, Apple does not get a cut. If you buy a lawn mower through Walmart's app, Apple does not get a cut. If you pay your electric bill through your bank's app, Apple does not get a cut.

I've seen this echoed several times, and AFAICT it's an uncritical knee-jerk reaction. It doesn't pass muster. Apple's track record indicates it doesn't care about money that doesn't "pass through" its platform. Historically, Apple wants its cut of transactions including: app purchases, in-app purchases, subscription purchases available directly through apps, and digital media purchases for iOS devices (cf. Kindle app).

However, there are notable major categories of apps that handle payments but do not incur the payment-cut issue. As others have noted, banking applications, which often include payment and money transfer functions, are ubiquitous. Payment facilitators are no strangers to the app store: PayPal[1], Square's line including Register[2], Cash[3] and Wallet[4]. Retail store apps also don't appear to be affected by the 30% cut: Amazon, B&H Photo, McMaster-Carr, etc. all have store apps.

Also, it seems that Apple has been forthcoming regarding reasoning in the past over disputes regarding in-app purchases, e.g. with Amazon over the Kindle app presenting the Kindle Store. In the BtC app cases, it's the stonewall "game over" response, with no ongoing communication as to how the app might regain compliance.

That suggests, in contrast to other cases, that Apple's current position is that these apps cannot become compliant. Even though the BtC-related apps otherwise resemble established payment-related products. That's an interesting distinction and points to either undisclosed legal concerns or otherwise different business concerns than were raised in earlier cases.

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paypal/id283646709?mt=8

[2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/square-register/id335393788?...

[3] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/square-cash/id711923939?mt=8

[4] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/square-wallet/id455018546?mt...

Good point, but all those payment apps have a very specific use case. The possible uses for BTC are much more varied, and Apple may well be anticipating some as-yet undiscovered use that could be disruptive to existing channels for collecting fees (among other things). Allowing Bitcoin would be playing with fire, given their business model.

I'm probably missing something obvious, but what use cases are possible with BTC but not, say, PayPal?

With PayPal you can pay for goods, receive payments for goods, transfer to an individual, receive payments from an individual, do it all in different currencies and transfer in and out of bank accounts etc.

Aside from the fact that the model itself is rather different, I can't think of any practical uses that can be done with one but not the other?

Edit: for clarification, I mean in the context of the parent's scenario of Apple taking their 30% cut of a transaction. Obviously there are plenty of reasons to use BTC over other payment methods.

In the most general sense, both types of apps are for "payments", but Bitcoin has unique properties that could allow for applications that are impossible with the above listed examples (because of central oversight, fees, limits, etc.)

Like what? I genuinely can't think of any.

I agree that there are advantages to Bitcoin over other payment methods. No dispute there.

But your original contention was that Apple want to be able to take a 30% slice of transactions, and they can't do that with Bitcoin so they're banning wallet apps. My gut instinct says that's not the reason but I'm trying to find out more info before deciding.

Apple don't take a cut of any of the transactions done through the PayPal app etc. so I think it's safe to assume that they wouldn't want a cut of similar transactions done over Bitcoin.

So again, I'm probably missing something obvious, but I can't think of any: what are some examples of transactions that are only possible with Bitcoin where Apple would want to take a cut.

Not just PayPal but pretty much every bank here in the UK and EU have banking apps. I do almost all of my business and personal banking using iOS apps (just because they are a lot more convenient than online banking websites). Can transfer money to bank accounts with no charges. And I'd find it pretty objectionable if Apple wanted to take a 30% cut of me transferring money into my personal bank account.

There are also a number of simple payment apps backed by banks for doing low value transfers (under 1500 GBP) like Barclays Pingit and so on.

Someone brought up in another thread that you can still use banking applications. When you transfer money on something like BoA or even Venmo, Apple doesn't get a cut.

That's true, though conventional usage has limited them to mostly stuff that would've happened outside iOS anyway. People tend to use things like the JPMorgan Chase app to check if their paycheck was deposited, or to scan a check, not to make in-app purchases that circumvent Apple's micropayments system (this is probably technically possible, but the flow is so bad that conversion would be very poor).

That's true. Do you think it means that the in-app purchase rule doesn't exist, or are you just very intrigued that banking is treated differently from other transactions?

The in-app purchase rule applies to purchased content that is delivered in the app.

Do they take 30% from banking apps?

No. The original poster is trolling.

Sadly, I suspect some people actually believe this 30% argument.

Wait. You mean a random HN comment from someone with the username @pervycreeper isn't completely factual?

/shocked

Reply on news.ycombinator.com