Now, he does follow with (quoting the TechCrunch article):
> This, he says, is why Apple requires in-app purchases to offer the same purchasing functionality as they would have elsewhere.
So, even though I, as a user, may consider the app to "not work" if it just asks me for a purchase immediately, Apple appears to consider an IAP prompt to be ok.
Anyways, I am an Halide v1 user so I have access to Mk II and love the app, but I'm just curious about how Apple makes these decisions.
He was certainly being disingenuous about that. Whether or not an app requires a payment to do anything is entirely orthogonal to its method of accepting the payment. Hey was rejected because they didn't use in-app purchases, no question about it.
IAP increases their valuation because it is categorized as recurrent revenue? Is this some kind of accounting hack? Or is it just that they get a bigger percentage of IAP?
