aidan on Nostr: 👍 Good creative thinking. It’s true that Apple wouldn’t contend that miner ...
đź‘Ť Good creative thinking.
It’s true that Apple wouldn’t contend that miner fees break that rule, because they’re not interested in that - they put these rules in place to a) stop grifters putting apps out there that skim altruistic transactions unbeknownst to the gifter and b) to get their cut and fund a marketplace that they created and for which they believe deserves remuneration.
Which leads me to disagree with your point about lawyers. Apple want small indie app developers to succeed on the App Store *without* a team of lawyers, hence a set of rules that, which super confusing, are an attempt to make things clear to non-lawyers.
The solution here is to appeal to their motives and implore them to support — and profit from — Lightning for in-app payments of any type.
It’s true that Apple wouldn’t contend that miner fees break that rule, because they’re not interested in that - they put these rules in place to a) stop grifters putting apps out there that skim altruistic transactions unbeknownst to the gifter and b) to get their cut and fund a marketplace that they created and for which they believe deserves remuneration.
Which leads me to disagree with your point about lawyers. Apple want small indie app developers to succeed on the App Store *without* a team of lawyers, hence a set of rules that, which super confusing, are an attempt to make things clear to non-lawyers.
The solution here is to appeal to their motives and implore them to support — and profit from — Lightning for in-app payments of any type.