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.
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 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."
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.
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.
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!
The user knowingly sets the money aside for things he could access for free.
2. Monthly budget cycle means that even if it comes to unauthorized usage the loss is something that Flattr can easily cover.
3. Any user complaints will quickly surface the possible scammer and since payouts are not immediate it’s easy to freeze accounts.
So far Flattr has a track record of 0 scamming, phishing or fraud, knock on wood.
You set a fixed amount of money each month which then gets slit up between all things you choose to support that month.
It's a valid point.
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.