
Apple Tells Gliph to Remove App's Bitcoin Transfer Function - dcawrey
http://www.coindesk.com/apple-gliph-remove-app-bitcoin-transfer/
======
dmix
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)

~~~
lukifer
I've been waiting for the day when Apple axes the "Add To Home Screen"
functionality entirely. It's a holdover from pre-App Store days, and has been
sadly neglected; iOS7 shipped with several show-stopper bugs [1], only some of
which have been fixed.

I have a feeling that they only keep HTML5 apps around as a pre-emptive
defense against anti-trust.

[1] [http://www.mobilexweb.com/blog/safari-ios7-html5-problems-
ap...](http://www.mobilexweb.com/blog/safari-ios7-html5-problems-apis-review)

~~~
untog
Agreed. It was a great feature when the iPhone launched but it's barely been
touched since. Yet amazingly, it's _still_ the best. Android Chrome only just
got Add To Homescreen functionality and it doesn't yet do anything special.

It's even more disappointing that Apple has implemented web push
notifications... on desktop only. It's a natural fit for their webapp
functionality but I don't hear anything about it being implemented. That plus
the ability to register a URL scheme would really be all I'd want from Apple.

~~~
JohnTHaller
It can really do a whole lot special with Add to Homescreen as Chrome is
running Mobile Safari underneath (the hobbled version for 3rd party browsers)
and can't really interact with the OS as much as it can on Android.

~~~
untog
But they could do a lot with it on Android. And haven't.

------
rmrfrmrf
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-a...](https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-
applications-in-the-app-store-and-google-play/)

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
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
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.

~~~
yeldarb
Illegal and "disputed legality" are two entirely different beasts. If the
legality is disputed that is for a court to decide, not Apple.

In regard to China specifically they explicitly said last week that it is
still legal for private Chinese citizens to use Bitcoin.

~~~
patmcc
Apple isn't deciding the legality, they're refusing to allow something of
"disputed legality" into the store they run.

Would you be mad at Walmart for not selling a new supplement that was of
"disputed legality"?

~~~
DanBC
Reddit has content that is clearly, unambiguously, illegal in the UK.

There are apps to access Reddit in the app store.

~~~
reginaldjcooper
What like cyberbullying? Genuinely curious.

~~~
DanBC
Reddit has a pro-suicide sub reddit. It is illegal for people in England to
aid someone who is attempting suicide.

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/60](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/60)

> Criminal liability for complicity in another’s suicide.

> (1)A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or
> an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on
> indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

This law is mostly used to prevent more active assistance in suicide, but it
is also used to prevent people giving advice about how to complete suicide.

So, that's one current sub reddit.

In the past there were jailbait subreddits. I never visited so I have no idea
about the content, but English law is stricter than US law around images of
people under the age of 18.

~~~
reginaldjcooper
I only knew there was the /r/jailbait that got removed. A pro-suicide forum is
an unsavory thing. Thanks for clarifying.

~~~
epaga
Pro-suicide is tame compared to many of the subreddits out there. If you're
curious, do NOT click the links in this collection but rather read the
reactions of people who did. (I am serious).

[http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1qa5ff/what_is_th...](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1qa5ff/what_is_the_most_disturbing_subreddit_you_have/)

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

------
3pt14159
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.

~~~
tensafefrogs
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.

~~~
crazygringo
But my Citibank app allows me to pay bills, transfer money between accounts,
and deposit checks. LevelUp allows me to pay for things using credit cards
linked to the app.

So it's pretty clear that Apple _does_ allow financial transactions to happen
in apps, without taking a cut or anything. What's unclear is why they would
allow this for Citibank, LevelUp, etc., but not for bitcoin.

~~~
sigzero
The issue is the LEGALITY of the currency.

~~~
MatmaRex
Bitcoin was not illegal last time I checked.

~~~
_Simon
The legality of the currency isn't confirmed either.

~~~
kybernetyk
Since when do you have to confirm that something is legal? Isn't the
predominant law system on this planet: It's allowed unless explicitly
forbidden?

------
salient
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
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)

------
oleganza
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
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
_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
No, it's really not. Could you explain why you think that?

~~~
JohnTHaller
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
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
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
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
The default used to be the bottom option which allows all apps. Then Apple
switched it to App Store and Publishers that paid Apple $99 with the
introduction of Gatekeeper. They'll switch it to App Store only by default
soon enough.

I'd wager that when Apple switches it to Mac App Store only by default, lots
of open source developers will simply give up on Macs. I was planning on
developing for Mac myself. Even bought a second hand Macbook to fire things
up. But the way Apple works, I just don't trust that it'll be viable in a
couple years. Given Apple's arbitrary application of rules in the iOS
ecosystem, I have a dim view of the Mac's future in terms of openness. I
decided instead to continue to focus on Windows and expand into *nix and
Android.

~~~
rplacd
I doubt open-source developers were paying to have their executables
codesigned in the first place - I'd assumed in the argument above, at the very
least, that the Gatekeeper denial isn't the silent suppression the iOS kernel
uses; and on that basis little may as well change for them.

Projecting that Apple'll change both the default position of a radio button
_and_ their marginalia and messaging around Gatekeeper is different (as a
somewhat more substantial change) from your premise, though.

~~~
JohnTHaller
A 3rd party to VLC tried getting VLC in the Mac App Store and then later it
was pulled for violating the GPL. VLC had to relicense their whole code base
to get in the App Store fully legally. Most open source projects will be
unable to do that due to the sheer number of contributors and resistance to
hobbling the copyleft license on their code.

Most of us that had been watching Apple had projected that Apple would launch
a Mac App store and make it the main place to get Mac software while still
keeping clauses in their App Store license that are GPL hostile. That came to
pass. As for Gatekeeper, expect that Apple will switch the setting in the next
couple years. After all, Mac went from allowing installs of any software by
default to restricting unsigned apps, essentially going from the lowest
Gatekeeper setting to the middle, with little fanfair and minimal pushback
from their userbase. They'll have an easy time taking it the next step as
well. It's only really holdouts like Adobe that aren't in the app store that
matter at this point. And Apple will likely force them into the App Store to
get their 30% cut in the next couple years with the Gatekeeper change.

All of this fits with Apple's core values of making things easy, exercising
complete control, and forcing an excessive revenue share from all publishers.
It already works that way for iPhone/iPad/iPod apps, music, videos and books.
The only holdout is Mac apps and that will happen soon enough. The only folks
that usually argue that it won't are the so-called Mac power-users who
continue to think that they are critical to Apple's success. This was true for
a time when they catered to media professionals. But they don't anymore, nor
do they have to. Apple's entire desktop/laptop hardware business accounts for
12% of their revenue and falling. They're a pure consumer company now, not a
computer/tech company anymore. There's simply more money in it. That's why
their bread and butter OS, iOS, is so completely locked down compared to all
of their competitors. There's no reason for them not to follow suit on the
desktop/laptop and get their 30% there as well.

~~~
rplacd
Your second point is terribly exhaustively induced - I've two nitpicks,
though, for the record's sake: there's the fairly low-lying target of whether
the poweruser response to the introduction of Gatekeeper suffices to predict
the response to any total lockout within OS X: the first was defended on the
basis that _it retained the option_ ; the second violates that.

There's also the question of their role: while "power users"'ll make up little
direct contribution to Apple's haul, they've forced Apple to expedite the
usual inscrutability at times: Apple's been fairly quick with the reassurances
after the dual (perceived) fiascoes that were the half-done rehaulings of both
FCPX and the-suite-formerly-known-as-iWork.

The question then becomes whether a variable amount of scorn'll sufficiently
tarnish the Mac platform as a whole, and whether it retains any inertia to
overcome any blip in opinion; that'll depend on what proportion of Apple's Mac
owners do care - that hasn't been established specifically for the Mac itself.
But it's fairly easy to project along the lines of your note on Apple's
dependence on the consumer when accounting for _all_ business: no doubt
adoption rates during the past few years've been up to the halo effect, and we
only need decide whether the proportions line up - the power users, after all,
have always remained, by definition, a minority; they've thus always had a
disproportionate amount of influence.

But you're arguing just as well for simply getting rid of their business
selling computers: perhaps they could just as well play that chance and feel
all the better focused for having fallen into the second. I'm sure there's a
surprise within that mold happening within Apple's future; it'd at least give
the analysts an impression of sufficient prescience. (Or they'd grant the
issue sufficient apathy on that front solely on the basis that their computer
lines have reverted back into one of their self-proclaimed "hobby" niches -
half the fun of Kremlinology's in tossing away the assumption that every actor
must constantly execute, chop-chop.)

(Which takes me back to your first - I _do_ understand that both App Stores
don't even so much as consider OSS licences: precisely my claim that "I doubt
open-source developers were paying to have their executables codesigned in the
first place".)

~~~
JohnTHaller
I never claimed they'd get rid of the ability to change the Gatekeeper
settings. Merely that they'd switch the default again. Just like before when
it went from unsigned being permitted to unsigned not being permitted. Sure,
there's an option to change it. But, as it is now, the vast majority of users
will never do it. So, yes, you'll have the option to change it as you can now.
But with it off by default, it becomes onerous to distribute an app for Mac
but not via the app store. Which is as Apple wants it. With all the apps in
the Mac app store, Apple can collect their 30% and exclude competition to
their own properties like they do on iOS.

FCPX and it's still less-than-previous-version-abilities and the abandonment
of the Power Mac for so long are perfect examples of 'power users' being de-
emphasized across Apple. Power users and media professionals were a much
larger part of Apple's business in the past. They're an extremely tiny part of
their business today and, as evidenced by Apple's own decisions and behavior,
worth paying a little bit of attention to eventually, but not much.

The main reason for Apple to continue to build laptops and desktops is in
service to their iOS and media businesses. Folks still need tools to build
apps and put together media.

And as for open source projects having their code signed, LibreOffice, Mozilla
Firefox, OpenOffice.org, my own PortableApps.com, etc would politely disagree
with you. Being open source doesn't preclude paying to sign or having a
business model. But the app store's onerous licensing agreement does preclude
some of my apps from ever being able to be offered.

~~~
rplacd
I apologize for bringing up the first assumption and running off it - I'd went
off with it precisely because you talked about complete exclusion: but of
course Apple can do a very well-considered nudge; I'm treading right over
false equivocation here, but the question so is always "to what extent?" \-
we're happy to consider Android relatively unfettering, despite having a
similarly "recessed" option like your projected one, but no doubt we're
judging it differently because a phone never needs to hold much promise.

An equivalence to Microsoft - I'm raising a great deal of them only because I
believe having everyone rush to emulate Apple's MO has a bit of their
exceptionalism rub off - is suggested by your second, though: both have
individual consumers, customers dependent on unique line-of-business setups
(as to the standard business, media professionals), and independent developers
(the last two make up the constituency with an interest in unfettered
application installation) in precisely the same proportion - but not the same
magnitude. The question, yet again, is in precisely how the proportion
represented by "a little bit" turns out to be - and how much that'll be when
applied. One has to measure precisely how much's been added back to FCP to the
magnitude of their retargeting of the FCP line in the first place to get an
impression of their influence. Apple's able to show a great deal of strength,
though; I'm simply sizing up the opposing influence.

But neither do I doubt that Apple'd ever deny themselves an opportunity for a
bit of bravado: I shouldn't ever be overtly hostile to someone projecting
reasoning with overt change and incompatibility for the ideal's sake onto
Apple.

Edit: and my thanks to you for the PortableApps as well - I remember lugging
around a gaudily pimped-up Firefox (Aqua theme and a Ghostfox-like quick-hide
addon, woot woot) on a 512MB flashdrive in middle school, and subsequently
realizing that the show of ricer agency can neutralize anyone's ability to
reasonably judge taste. A fairly good life lesson to be had early while
getting to terms with a teenager's first pecking order.

~~~
JohnTHaller
No apology necessary, just a typical online missing-a-few-blanks-and-filling-
them-in-ourselves event. :) It's true that Android has the ability to 'side
load' and it is off by default, but phones and PCs are different animals. So,
it's better to compare it to Windows which permits running even unsigned apps
by default, though it does black the screen and show a warning box with a big
red exclamation point.

Realistically, I think the Mac laptops and desktops will continue along the
'consumer' line of thinking in terms of features and functionality. Apple will
likely set Gatekeeper to Mac App Store only by default within the next release
or two of Mac OS X. Users will be able to change it, of course, but it will
still have the desired effect of making publishers feel like they have to sell
through the App Store and give up 30% of their revenue to Apple (and also
abandon many of their pricing models since the App Store doesn't support
variable upgrade pricing, unfortunately).

Most Apple users won't even know they can get apps outside of the App Store at
that point, similar to how most Android users don't know. Similarly to
Android, of course, there will be some power users that know and make use of
that feature. Most Mac OS X users will be completely unaware of the fact that
any of this happened or that their options have been limited, though, the same
way most iOS users are unaware Apple prohibits third party browsers (unless
they're just a skin on hobbled Mobile Safari), SMS clients, etc.

Personally, I disagree with the path Apple has forged the last few years. They
make pretty good hardware and were the first company that really 'got' mobile
music (and the fact that it needed good hardware and software - both on the
device and the connecting PC). I have an original iPod Mini I got and later
hacked a 16GB CF card into and ran Busybox on. I even have an old Mac Classic
sitting in the closet that I'll pull out and put shufflepuck on at some point.
But I likely won't buy anything from Apple ever again at this point. And I
won't develop anything for a platform whose owner operates the way and has the
level of control that Apple does. Both of which make me a bit sad.

Glad you like PortableApps.com and it's helped you out. We're still chugging
along. If you're so inclined, give it an install to your cloud drive (Dropbox,
SkyDrive, Google Drive, etc) and you can run your apps from there and sync
them among your Windows machines. You can even run them under Wine on *nix or
one of the Wine equivalents on Mac (CrossOver, Wineskin, WineBottler,
PlayOnMac).

------
sirkneeland
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
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
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
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.

------
Houshalter
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
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_a...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals#Black_Friday_Gold_Panic_1869)

~~~
reginaldjcooper
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.

------
api
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)

------
jljljl
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
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.

------
hoggle
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
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."

