Apple rejecting apps with Flattr micro-payment integration
Social micro-payment company Flattr was dealt a blow on Monday as it was announced that Apple will be rejecting any app that integrates the donation service as it violates App Store terms and conditions regarding third-party payments.
Problems began in early May when Apple rejected an update for the popular podcast manager Instacast, citing the app's new integration with Flattr which allowed users to donate money with the click of a button, notes TechCrunch.
Flattr is designed to allow in-app monetary support for content creators who would otherwise go unfunded, like podcasters or video makers. In the system, users allocate a specified amount of money to a pool at the beginning of each month and when they see a Flattr button on any site or app, they can click to donate. Flattr counts the number of clicks at the end of the month and disperses the pooled money evenly.
In the Instacast integration, users could click to "flattr" or donate to a podcast creator after an episode was completed. Another option, called "auto-flattr," allowed users to automatically donate when a podcast began playing.
A Monday post on Flattr's blog details why Apple found the system to be in contempt of certain iTunes App Store regulations, starting with the May 6th rejection of Instacast HD. App Store guideline 21.2 states: The collection of donations must be done via a web site in Safari or an SMS.
While Flattr is no doubt in violation of the rule, the company along with Instacast maker Vemedio appealed the ruling claiming that adhering to Apple's guidelines would inhibit the functionality of the system. In a letter to Flattr Apple notes, ?we understand that directing your user outside your app may not be the user experience you prefer to offer your users. However it is a common experience in a variety of iOS apps.?
The appeal was ultimately shot down on May 24 and Vemedio had to disable Flattr to push critical bug fixes through the App Store.
Flattr staff mulling options after a call with Vemedio. | Source: Flattr blog.
It is possible that Apple is protecting themselves from possible lawsuits like those seen last year regarding children purchasing in-app game currency without parents' knowledge. A more likely reason to reject Flattr integration is that the service competes with Apple's own in-app payment system, which nets the company 30 percent of each transaction.
The micro-payment company said the May 24th ruling is "not the end," and notes that Vemedio will continue talks with Apple alongside Flattr's own efforts to test new in-app integrations.
Problems began in early May when Apple rejected an update for the popular podcast manager Instacast, citing the app's new integration with Flattr which allowed users to donate money with the click of a button, notes TechCrunch.
Flattr is designed to allow in-app monetary support for content creators who would otherwise go unfunded, like podcasters or video makers. In the system, users allocate a specified amount of money to a pool at the beginning of each month and when they see a Flattr button on any site or app, they can click to donate. Flattr counts the number of clicks at the end of the month and disperses the pooled money evenly.
In the Instacast integration, users could click to "flattr" or donate to a podcast creator after an episode was completed. Another option, called "auto-flattr," allowed users to automatically donate when a podcast began playing.
A Monday post on Flattr's blog details why Apple found the system to be in contempt of certain iTunes App Store regulations, starting with the May 6th rejection of Instacast HD. App Store guideline 21.2 states: The collection of donations must be done via a web site in Safari or an SMS.
While Flattr is no doubt in violation of the rule, the company along with Instacast maker Vemedio appealed the ruling claiming that adhering to Apple's guidelines would inhibit the functionality of the system. In a letter to Flattr Apple notes, ?we understand that directing your user outside your app may not be the user experience you prefer to offer your users. However it is a common experience in a variety of iOS apps.?
The appeal was ultimately shot down on May 24 and Vemedio had to disable Flattr to push critical bug fixes through the App Store.
Flattr staff mulling options after a call with Vemedio. | Source: Flattr blog.
It is possible that Apple is protecting themselves from possible lawsuits like those seen last year regarding children purchasing in-app game currency without parents' knowledge. A more likely reason to reject Flattr integration is that the service competes with Apple's own in-app payment system, which nets the company 30 percent of each transaction.
The micro-payment company said the May 24th ruling is "not the end," and notes that Vemedio will continue talks with Apple alongside Flattr's own efforts to test new in-app integrations.
Comments
Use Kickstarter. Problem solved. Who needs yet another intermediary?
GOOD. I applaud Apple for disallowing micropayments.
Quote:
The micro-payment company said the May 24th ruling is "not the end,"…
Apple's terrified, I'm sure.
Apple is being sued by the world and its wife (and grandmothers) because they have a big pile of cash.
If they allow Flattr, they'll be on the end of a class action / anti trust suit from those who were forced to remove external in-app payments, not to mention the parents who can't control their kids.
If they don't allow Flattr, they'll be called a big greedy bully.
When you're dammed if you do and dammed if you don't, you do as you will.
-Najinsky
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
What people don't eat is that all payments through Apple's systems get knocked down 30% for Apple's share. They are forcing you not to go that way so the full donation goes to the intended party without hassle
It does get a bit sticky in some instances. You can't even have a link to a website inside your app if any where on that website there is a way to buy something. Sometimes I think they go too far but where do you draw the line?
I thought that's how Amazon app works for buying books.
I agree that donations shouldn’t go through Apple, even if Apple is providing something for that 30% cut. Apple seems to agree too—and luckily iOS apps support two methods of payment, both officially endorsed by Apple:
1. IAP, which is a single system with rules enforced by Apple right down to the OS design in some ways. That is the very reason users can trust this method. It always works the same, it always has the same security, and is entirely controlled from the central Settings app, where you can even disable/enable it at will.
2. Second-best: pay on the web, in your browser, and Apple takes no role in controlling anything. These are the same ways that people pay online all the time on an “old style” computer. They still work on iOS too. This is second-best for users (ease of use), second-best for developers (sometimes; because users prefer the IAP route) and second best for Apple too! But it’s an important option to have. eBooks are one example of why (this is how you buy a Kindle book and read it on your iPad). Donations are another example. Plus, people are just plain used to buying stuff in web pages, PayPal, etc. It’s good that Apple keeps this open, in keeping with their philosophy of “anything goes” in the browser, but not in native code.
So why does Apple push #1 as the preferred option, keeping #2 separated from apps and not even allowing a direct web link from a button in the app? (A rule I assume is true even for donations.) Why can’t web payment be integrated directly into an app, even right inside a webkit view? It would make #2 more polished, and users would like it.
There are two answers, both true:
1. Apple wants their 30%. They invented and constantly develop/enhance the platform, the dev tools, the store, and the software-update mechanism. They host your app internationally for multiple markets, they promote it, and they pay for everything from customer service to bandwidth to making sure the right tax is charged each region to credit card transaction fees.
But that’s still not a huge part of Apple’s income, and it’s not core to how they make money. They make money by giving users a good experience. So the more important reason is:
2. If there’s only ONE way to pay money inside iOS apps, that’s a BETTER user experience. We may not like the “idea” of limits and rules, but at the end of they day, iOS users are very comfortable with the single trusted IAP solution built into iOS. Imagine if every app had its own unique way to pay... it would be an incredible pain! You’d never know what to trust, and you’d never know what the steps of the process are supposed to be. We techie forum-goers might not all mind (although I would) but most of the world isn’t in our niche—and they’d mind. Or they simply wouldn’t do it—they’d buy fewer apps and fewer IAPs, by far. (Which in turn means that having one single system that works well is good for developers!)
Simplicity would be lost, and simplicity matters. To users, not just to Apple. Apple makes their real money by making things work well, not by a 30% cut of micropayments.
(P.S. That’s one deeply moving photo of some serious mulling. You don’t see mulling like that every day.)
• Bandwidth
• Servers
• Billing system to customers
• Payment system to developers
• APIs to make it all happen seamlessly to user
• Marketing to drive users to the AppStore
• The iOS development kit, avail for free
In return, Apple asks for 30% vs a standard online retailer's 50% cut. This is a business
Cheers !
I thought Amazon had to remove the button that sent users to the Amazon kindle website.
I was thinking of the recent Dropbox fiasco as well.
Somebody please file a restraint of trade lawsuit against Apple. this is getting stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619
Apple provides the ecommerce solution for the developer:
• Bandwidth
• Servers
• Billing system to customers
• Payment system to developers
• APIs to make it all happen seamlessly to user
• Marketing to drive users to the AppStore
• The iOS development kit, avail for free
In return, Apple asks for 30% vs a standard online retailer's 50% cut. This is a business
Cheers !
Best Buy provides shelf space for retail boxed copies of World of Warcraft, doesn't mean Best Buy gets to claim 30% of WoW subscriptions in perpetuity after the sale is made. Apple is out of control.
In the end this is a matter of one of two scenarios
1. Developer didn't bother to read all the rules and got smacked over it. Lesson learned, move on
2 (and I think more likely from the reaction) Developer read the rules, didn't like the rules, decided to do it anyway and thought they could convince Apple to change the rules. They were wrong.
Thing is that from what I understand about how they have the app set up they don't need the system set up the way it is. As it was described folks deposit money at the top of the month into a big community jar and then at the end of the month it is divided up according to which content had the most "likes". So call it that and leave out the money connection. Set up a website for the registering the log in details and sending your money and then put a log in at the top of the app. Folks hit "Like" or "thumbs up" or whatever and at the end of the money divide up the pool by the scores. Apple can hardly cry foul over that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77
Best Buy provides shelf space for retail boxed copies of World of Warcraft, doesn't mean Best Buy gets to claim 30% of WoW subscriptions in perpetuity after the sale is made. Apple is out of control.
They can if that's the contract that they set up with WoW. Apple has the right to make what rules they want. You don't like it, don't do business with them. Sure it means you might have to 'go rogue' and set as a jail break app and not everyone is going to go that route but that's the risk you take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77
Somebody please file a restraint of trade lawsuit against Apple. this is getting stupid.
Or sell your app elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
They can if that's the contract that they set up with WoW. Apple has the right to make what rules they want. You don't like it, don't do business with them. Sure it means you might have to 'go rogue' and set as a jail break app and not everyone is going to go that route but that's the risk you take.
Apple doesn't have a right to restrict legal commerce between application developers and owners of iPhone just because it wants to get a cut by being the middle man. This has played out in many other industries before, and Apple will eventually lose this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619
Apple provides the ecommerce solution for the developer:
• Bandwidth
• Servers
• Billing system to customers
• Payment system to developers
• APIs to make it all happen seamlessly to user
• Marketing to drive users to the AppStore
• The iOS development kit, avail for free
In return, Apple asks for 30% vs a standard online retailer's 50% cut. This is a business
Cheers !
And anyone who thinks your list is cheap or easy to manage needs to nut up and match it on another platform and see how much capital they need up front and staffing to match it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77
Apple doesn't have a right to restrict legal commerce between application developers and owners of iPhone just because it wants to get a cut by being the middle man. This has played out in many other industries before, and Apple will eventually lose this.
So they can sell their stuff on their websites, accessible through Safari on iDevices. There's nothing for Apple to lose. You can skateboard on the street and public sidewalk but not on my sidewalk and my driveway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77
Apple doesn't have a right to restrict legal commerce between application developers and owners of iPhone just because it wants to get a cut by being the middle man. This has played out in many other industries before, and Apple will eventually lose this.
They do, however, have the right to control what they sell in their store. Don't like their rules? Don't play their game. There are plenty of alternative options for developers. If they wanna access Apple's customers with iTunes accounts, they'll have to follow the rules. If you owned your own store, then you would understand what it means to be the owner. John Doe from across the street can't force you to sell his cherries if you don't want to.