Hacker News Reader

Comment by alaskamiller | Hacker News Reader

Because it's unregulated and any problems then lands at Apple's door to adjudicate so they don't want these headaches because to do so requires setting up channels and systems and policies for the local, state, federal, and international areas of contention but the lack of profit incentives makes this a simple decision.

Do I get a MBA now?

View on HN

Add a "for the children" angle and you're ready for congress.

Edit: As far as baseless speculation goes, I suspect it has nothing to do with legal liability and Apple being in a better position to release a Square killer at the OS level.

And yet, Square Cash was recently approved.

this bitcoin app was approved previously too

This Bitcoin app was approved long before the recent spike in public/media/government interest in cryptocurrencies, and new ones are being consistently rejected.

Apple will buy Square this year.

What makes you say that? That seems pretty far outside Apple's domain, running payments for physical merchants.

- Scuttlebutt is that Square staff are prepping for an acquisition

- Jack Dorsey just sold back some of his own stock to employees

- Apple loves Jack Dorsey

- iOS platform can benefit from a mobile money processor

"a mobile money processor" -- like iTunes/App Store?

iStore = wallet (potential intent)

Square = card (actual transaction)

They actually already do this with their retail stores: You can scan products with the Apple Store App and pay for it using your Apple ID and its charged to your credit card on file.

This is brilliant when you're at a mega-busy Apple store on a Saturday afternoon and all you want is a Lightning cable adapter. Pick, scan, pay, show the nice man on the way out, PROFIT.

OK, but I still don't see a compelling business reason that having a payment processor would be good for Apple. They can already process payments, how does helping Barbara at the flea market of Little Jim's Cafe process credit cards help their core businesses?

That sounds more like the "Apple should own everything" school of thought. More like what Google or (old) Microsoft does. It doesn't sound Apple-y.

The price would be too high - Apple has never paid more than a few hundred million for any acquisition[1] and Square are reputed to be north of $4B[2].

[1] http://www.tuaw.com/2014/01/14/why-apple-didnt-buy-nest/ [2] http://www.thestreet.com/story/12099901/1/square-could-be-wo...

Your baseless speculation can be disproven extremely simply, and that is by pointing out that Apple would never broadcast a move (such as entering the payment market) by squashing competition, until they're actually ready to announce. Since they're not announcing anything, it's pretty obvious that this is not motivated by squashing competition for anything.

The App Store exists for the benefit of one organization: Apple. Whether users or developers benefit from it entirely depends on how their goals align with the goals of Apple. It is a very real and stark example of the principal-agent problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem

False. It is regulated. Coinbase is simply ignoring the regulations.

Any exchange app that transmits Bitcoins involves money transmission. Money transmission is regulated in the United States. No one is following the laws. Apple doesn't want another DOJ action. It's that simple.

It's the money handling that is regulated, not the Bitcoins. You can trade Bitcoins for anything except money without any licensing (in the U.S.).

Apple wants out so people will not be carrying around irreplaceable wallets in their phones, then blaming Apple when they get robbed.

False, sending/recieving bitcoins/litecoins/dogecoins/monopoly money is not regulated in us. Only if you exchange those for real money in certain ammounts you need to aply for money bussiness transmition/exchange licence.

Alternatively: Apple is poised to take on mobile payments (with over half a billion accounts with credit cards on file) and doesn't want anything to disrupt their plans.

Anyway, why is it Apple's responsibility to ensure every app developer and user complies with the law?

It's not. However, all those customers that will get screwed will knock on Apple's door, even if they have been warned with huge blinking-red letters that it is not Apple's responsibility to provide insurance for bitcoin transactions. Apple doesn't need the headache for what will probably be 0.00001% of their revenue.

Just like everyone who gets shafted by a Windows app goes and complains to Microsoft?

Yes, all six of the people who use the Windows Store.

And yet, Square frequently gets featured by Apple.

Apple benefits when people buy their hardware to use Square. Is the benefit of owning them worth the liability and extra costs? I doubt it.

Additionally, there are fewer excuses they can use for blocking Square.

I've been following Brian Roemelle's blog on Quora. This seems the most likely scenario to me. It's a huge opportunity for Apple, and they've already been telegraphing their intentions even before bitcoin started getting popular.

I don't understand how everyone believes this to be so true, that its a massive conspiracy theory because Apple is supposedly about to launch their own payments platform.

Bitcoin is nowhere near popular enough to be a threat to any rumored Apple payments platform.

Bitcoin is not the same thing as mobile payments. I send mobile payments, I don't do bitcoin, and I'm a nerd. What percentage of the population do you think really is interested in ever using bitcoins?

Rob from Gliph here.

This makes good sense, but it also suggests that Google is more than willing to handle these headaches without profit incentives.

While I'm here, if anyone's interested, I'll answer questions live about our experience with Apple on this: https://gliph.me/ibo.

You may want to review this blog entry to see if your question is already answered: https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-a...

No one cares about the Android marketplace.

Citation needed.

China.

That doesn't make any sense. Android phones sold in China don't have the Google Play store, thus Play doesn't matter anywhere?

Don't try using logic here. We are bashing Google Play store here. Any facts, logic and common sense are not allowed. As they say in the classics, we have left the reserve.

This is like asking for a citation for what color the sky is. It's common knowledge and accepted fact. The Android store (Play store? Google store? Idk wtf it's even called anymore) is a complete joke and an embarrassment to app stores everywhere.

Even the design looks like it was whipped together by developers.

You are wrong (no citation needed either).

On the other hand, the apple store is complete joke. IDK how anyone can use a store where such basic application like bitcoin wallet is missing.

And this is why you're on Hacker News and not a billionaire, because you lack certain skills like understanding basic user experience and interaction.

PS: The only thing Bitcoin is relevant for is cheap publicity for your startup. Something as ugly and unintuitive as Bitcoin is not going to take off and become "the currency of the internet". Ever.

Or google doesn't really care, they'll just kick out any app that is bringing troubles when it comes. The play store is already some kind of wild west, they have no image problem and they'll be able to take any radical action they want to avoid the shit hitting the fan without getting the news sites on their back for 3 months.

>> This makes good sense, but it also suggests that Google is more than willing to handle these headaches without profit incentives.

I'm not an Android developer, but judging from what I've read about the experience Android developers have with the Play store, Google basically doesn't care about after-sales support for customers at all, and unloads about every kind of headache imaginable directly onto the developer (including payment problems, refunds, broken IAP, etc).

Apple's a big company and a pro when it comes to legal matters. Why are they so gunshy about it when Android and Windows stores have bitcoin apps?

Maybe that's where being a pro on legal matters comes in?

Wait, so you're saying being a pro on legal matters doesn't mean you just do whatever you want knowing you will always win in court? Damn, so much for that law degree.

I think you may have just answered your own question.

Because no one cares about Android or Windows marketplaces.

Aren't most iPhone apps "unregulated"?

there's a lot more "governance" when it comes to money transfer apps than say, games

I guess companies that openly deal with or accept bitcoins, like Overstock.com or Coinbase, need to hire some MBAs.

Overstock has market capitalization that's barely a rounding error to what Apple does. And Coinbase can't code.

Let's be real.

Overstock runs a thin margin business. Being able to cut out the 2-3% credit card transaction fee is probably worth the risk for them.

Probably not.

If you are simply accepting BTC for services/products rendered, the regulations are relatively simple.

If you permit individuals to send BTC to one another, you've got a lot of stuff to deal with.

Yes!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com