Apple rejected Flattr… and it’s not the end

[DanI-S]

> We understand that directing your user outside of 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.

That doesn't seem like the kind of uncompromising approach to fantastic user experience that has made Apple so successful.

[signalsignal]

I think Instacast, and maybe Flattr as well, should boycott Apple and instead focus on the Android platforms starting with Google Play and Amazon's Appstore. Otherwise they are helping to perpetuate and even reward this kind of behavior.

Does anyone have the link for Instacast for Android?

[ge0rg]

Except that exactly this approach is going to make Apple more successful if Apple apps are the only ones allowed to have uncompromised UX.

[lucisferre]

You mean like the app store? Or iCal? Nothing is blemish free.

[glimcat]

My big unanswered question going into the article was "What the crud is Flattr and why should I care." Starting your posts off with a brief introduction of who you are is often a good idea.

Flattr is a micropayment system. You pay them a monthly subscription, then Like(tm) a bunch of stuff on the internet. They split up whatever portion of your monthly sub that they don't keep among the places you tag. Apple presumably flagged the app which integrated Flattr due to their well-known policies about in-app payments.

[CookWithMe]

> Starting your posts off with a brief introduction of who you are is often a good idea.

IF most of your readers don't know what you are doing. I think this was written for their community (not HN), so most of them know what Flattr is about.

Also, they have "About Flattr" in the footer - not very prominently placed, but still find-able.

[Siimteller]

Good point, added to the beginning of the post.

[jmonegro]

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.

[bilbo0s]

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.

[sch1zo]

I think you should look at how flattr works.

You set a fixed amount of money each month which then gets slit up between all things you choose to support that month.

[idspispopd]

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.

[Alex3917]

Also, what happens when donations turn into plums? Apple may see the donations concept as a trojan horse, which it most likely is.

[lazerwalker]

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.

[mgkimsal]

"We understand that directing your user outside of 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."

So... it's crappy for everyone across the board. Take comfort in that!

[recoiledsnake]

Except for apps that pay 30% to Apple. That's a key distinction.

[LinaLauneBaer]

Here is a copy (as PDF) of the article in case you can't access the site:

http://christian-kienle.de/ShinyVideo/Flattr.pdf

[jcmhn]

I think we can safely say Apple has dropped their party manners and shown the knives.

Unfortunately android is the only possible competitor I see, and the carriers have pretty much guaranteed that android won't be any freer for users or developers.

[rmATinnovafy]

I'll wait this one out to see if the issue snowballs. Either way, this could turn out to be a positive PR tactic. God luck to the flattr team.

[Steqheu]

I think we DDoS'd them.

[mike-cardwell]

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3...

[mindbreaker]

Or you can try this:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

[karl_nerd]

considered brokep from the pirate bay is heavily involved in flattr, i'm a little bit disappointed the site went down

[bananaoomarang]

Yup.

[bangbang]

I hope they planned for this. Hinging an entire business on the decision of a 3rd party is Russian roulette.

[sirclueless]

Flattr is fundamentally a web company, competing with Google's +1 button and Facebook's Like button more than than Paypal donations, even if users are spending real money. This is just a potential new arena for Flattr, and not their core business.

[redslazer]

They already have a relatively successful business. This rejection just removes one of their possible revenue streams and nothing more.

[sparknlaunch12]

Unlucky you have been curtailed by Apple for now but sure you can rework your model to fit within what is allowable. Keep persevering as you seem to have built a useful application.

[Siimteller]

Thanks, as said in the post - we’ll keep at it as the only way to find out what’s cool with Apple and what’s not is to submit stuff to them and hope to have a constructive dialog.

[tzs]

OT design suggestion: when you have a corporate blog, have a prominent link somewhere on the top that goes to your main site.

[radimm]

Rejected by Apple and the 'Paypal suxx' on their desk. Tough luck

[recoiledsnake]

Would the app have been approved if Apple was given 30% of the proceeds? I am guessing yes.

[taligent]

Would the app have been approved if they had followed Apple's guidelines? I am guessing yes.