In this case, where donations would happen with one tap, I think it is sensible for Apple to require breaking the UX so as to avoid unintended donations by the users, or malicious implementation by the developers.
I'm not very big on Apple practices, but I have to agree with you here. This seems like the sort of tool that can be used to do some really shady things. Which, in and of itself, is not a problem. The thing is, when money 'goes missing' from user accounts, they tend to blame either Apple or the App company as opposed to themselves for not paying attention to what they were doing. Apple has been burned in the media by things like that before. IE - Kids racking up thousands of dollars of purchases because mom authorized one, and then let the kid go play on her ipad.
In this case, this seems reasonable. Unless I'm missing something, this is not the sort of thing you want being easy for novice users.
I think you missed the point that you set a fixed amount of money to use each month.
There's no way flattr will use more than the chosen monthly amount.
Principle is the same. So Flattr only enables shady access to $30 a month, which mom wanted to use at a day spa say. Only little suzy saw the "like" thing and said, "Hey... I like this paperdolls app/site (whatever)!"
I mean, mom may have even been happy allocating some money to educational things, but not virtual Barbies. Your statement is basically saying, "Well Flattr only enables shady people to steal a set amount every month."
Explain to me, exactly, step-by-step. How forcing little suzy to click 2 times by having to use safari, instead of 1 click inside the app. Would stop the problem you're mentioning.
You're confusing two completely separate things. One is preventing fraud (what you think apple is doing). The other is force a possible fraud to take 2 seconds longer (what they actually are accomplishing). They have the same amount of control to prevent fraud within the app as within safari. If they want to prevent fraud, they could ban fraudulent apps. Not just add unnecessary roadblocks to apps that just happen to not be paying them app store share for donations.
So everyone could play by the honor system until someone does something slimy, at which point Apple finds themselves with no ability to rectify the situation beyond ripping out a scammy app and angering any legitimate users. What's the upside here for Apple again?
You seem to think that 1 click is no different from 2 clicks.
I draw your attention to Amazon's one click patent and the huge influence it has had on their success. 1 click can be reactive. 2 clicks almost always requires you to think about your decision.
Explain to me, exactly, step-by-step. How forcing little
suzy to click 2 times by having to use safari, instead of 1
click inside the app. Would stop the problem you're
mentioning.
You'd make an awesome politician: Can't answer the question? No problem! Ask yourself a different question and proceeed to answer that one instead!
IIRC the app developers already get part of the 10% fee flattr takes as they are somehow the referer of the "flattr-clicks".
And if the app developer unknowningly flattrs the app for the user, the user could immediately see that on his flattr dashboard and inform flattr about the scammer.
It's also larger than that, Apple's involvement isn't just a cash grap for a 30% slice.
It's because Apple want both visibility, and the power to refund customers who make legitimate complaints. Currently anything purchased inside an app can be refunded by Apple: music, videos, software, anything. The user's account password is needed whenever they wish to buy something.
The moment that is externalised Apple have no visibility or control over the payments, how they are made and what frequency they are occurring. They could inadvertently be publishing an app that tricks users into donating money, or money that goes to inappropriate use.
By requiring the user to switch to the browser where they'll need to either enter their CC details or account credentials is a nice way for both Apple to distance itself, and for consumers to understand that it's external to the app store ecosystem.
I agree, but I think there is a valuable distinction between making all purchases pop up a basic modal dialog that requires a second tap (the standard Apple in-app purchase flow) and requiring donations to load either a UIWebView which requires time to load a page that requests confirmation or to operate via SMS, which requires fully exiting the application to go to the Messages app. One is minimally intrusive, the other not so much.
If I read correctly, Apple will not allow the donation UI to be shown modally through an UIWebView, but instead requires that the donation be made through the Safari app.
