Why Does Apple Make Donation Apps So Hard?
In August, PayPal added a donation feature that allowed users to make charitable contributions from within the services's iPhone app. In late October, Apple made them pull the plug with no warning and little explanation.
Anuj Nayar, on behalf of PayPal, would only say, "I can confirm that we added the donations feature to our iPhone app in version 2.5 in mid August. We removed the feature in version 3.0 of our PayPal Mobile iPhone app. This was done at Apple's request."
A little background: to implement its donation feature, PayPal partnered with MissionFish, whose mandate is to help non-profits raise funds through online donations. In PayPal's case, users of the app would be given an option to donate to either a featured charity or one of nearly 18,000 organizations in the MissionFish database. Choose the non-profit, choose the amount, hit submit, and you were done.
Because PayPal already has a payment method on file for the user, it was essentially a two-click operation. And in the few months that the feature was operational, it had raised more than $10,000 at an average donation amount of $12.
Much of the feature's success came from its being an in-app transaction. That also turned out to be its downfall. Prior to the Oct. 26th release of PayPal 3.0, Apple decided that they wanted any donations to be completed in Safari, a sudden and unexpected move that would have result in a significant drop-off in participation. There hasn't been any further explication from Cupertino since then.
"Nonprofits are really stymied by the iPhone and this policy approach," says MissionFish's Clam Lorenz. "They're not sure what the policy is, because it seems vague or arbitrary."
PayPal's not the only charity app to experience a seemingly capricious App Store regulatory process. Givabit is a free app that features a different charity every day, encouraging users to make micro-donations. Getting the app approved was, according to co-founder Justin Kazmark, quite an ordeal:
"Apple was clear that any in-app transaction via iTunes would entitle Apple to 30% of that transaction — presumably charity donations included. Given the fact that we thought 30% was way too much to take from a $1 donation to charity, we had to come up with a different solution than to go through iTunes."
To avoid sending nearly a third of their donors' contributions to Apple, Givabit settled on the less-effective method of sending payments to the browser. Although that wasn't the end of it.
Apple's review team first sent back direction that Givabit couldn't specify what percentage of donations went to the non-profits (96.25%) and what went towards operational costs (the rest). The reason for that request, and others, was never made clear:
"We called up and asked for additional information about why we couldn't include that language. The person we spoke to was very unclear about what the policy was. We were also told that we couldn't use the term "Phonelanthropy," which we made up to describe what we were doing or the tagline we had on the app: "Microdonations. Macrobenefit." They said we would have to get rid of that, too. Basically, anything that alluded to charity/philanthropy they felt uncomfortable with but wouldn't articulate clearly what their policy was."
Later, Apple told Givabit to remove specific dollar amount buttons within the app, insisting that those be put on the Safari page as well.
While Apple hasn't fully explained its rationale to either Givabit or MissionFish, it's likely that they don't want to be liable for donation apps that turn out to be fraudulent. The best way to avoid that liability is block any and all in-app donations. If that's the case, though, it seems unusual that an exception couldn't be made for a known partner in good standing, like PayPal. And in-app purchases have been commonplace since iOS 3.0.
For its part, Lorenz says PayPal will introduce in-app donations to its Android app before the end of the year, while still waiting for Apple to further clarify why it reversed its position. And other charitable apps are left navigating the murky waters of App Store policy, hoping for clarity in time for the season of giving.
Send an email to Brian Barrett, the author of this post, at bbarrett@gizmodo.com.
Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.A 30% cut from a charitable donation seems.. well greedy.Paypal on the otherhand, charges 2.2% of the transaction, plus 30 cents per transaction for charitable non-profit donations. Not free, which would be nice but excusable given that they make it very easy to donate, so more people are likely to.
As a side note, am I the only one annoyed that the Salvation Army bell ringers don't take debit cards? Reply
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple he shut down the Corporate Philanthropy operations until "general profitably improves". Despite becoming the biggest technology company in the world and enjoying huge success, he still has not restarted the program. Replyreuthermonkey promoted this comment
"Why does Apple make donation apps so hard?"Because then they don't get any of the money. This is easy to answer, come on.
I bet they'll introduce a "donation" function before too long that they'll take a cut off the top of. Reply
As a non-profit development director, hearing this type of news is disappointing. It takes the leaders of all the sectors coming together to tackle our communities' most pressing issues. Any and all obstacles to that should be minimized and diminished. The easier it is for individuals to invest in the organizations doing the best work, the more we all win. Replyndonahue promoted this commentAlmightywhacko approved this comment
Seriously, Paypal? C'mon, they always ask you for money, but they never show you where the money goes. Haiti is a clear example, only 2% of $5.3 billion was delivered, and the $1.15 billion that the United States promised for the "Relief" was never paid: [ac360.blogs.cnn.com]Same with Ryan Secrest's Mosquito Nets : [www.guardian.co.uk]
Think about it, if all the money raised in the past 20 years, or let's say from the Live Aid concert in '85 really went to Africa, they would be doing great today. Reply
"They're not sure what the policy is, because it seems vague or arbitrary."Sounds like Apple's modus operandi... Reply
HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H. promoted this comment
It's not just Apple that's doing this. I have a free app in the WP7 Marketplace that initially had a "donate" button in it so users could support the app. Microsoft made me remove the "donate" button on the basis that it created a "commercial relationship with users outside of the WP7 Marketplace environment". :( ReplyTomXP411 promoted this comment
My guess is that Apple did this to make sure they still have their hands in the money pot. They get a percentage of apps sold which tends to be more than the developer actually gets. By allowing Paypal and other services the opportunity to integrate into the application the devs could actually start getting all their money only having to deal with a transaction fee. They would find a way to code their app as a "free" app as far as iTunes was concerned but would require "activation" through paypal of say 1.99. Now the devs get the money they deserve for "paid" apps.I don't agree with Apple ruling their app store and devs in such a facists matter and hope and pray it comes back to bite them in the ass as Android becomes more popular. Reply
It could be, perhaps, that Steve's shoes were too tight. Or maybe his head wasn't screwed on just right. But I think that the most likely reason of all may have been that his heart was two sizes too small. Reply
This is a case of Satan fighting his asshole brother. Both are primarily dickhole companies and I have a hard time picking a side.Paypal=Blatant theives.
Apple=Indirect thieves.-Sent from my iPhone. Reply
Apple continues to ostracize itself.They do not allow well known charitable contribution agencies or partners, because they might be fraudulent if the donations are made in-App.
Yet they allowed something like "I'm Rich" to go through at the time.
Their censorship will be their demise, and with it the waste of a good platform. Reply
That's what pisses me off about these tech titan trillionaires.Name one single tech giant who has done a single thing to help his fellow man! Reply
I wish developers would move over to brand X and bring things like this to the real world.
Dealing with Apple is a test in madness and just gets worse as time goes on.
Just because they have more apps in there store does not make them better, and I do not use them in less I have to for my Sons Ipod, when that is gone we will be Apple free in this house and I hope to keep it that way.And when that day comes ITunes will be gone from our systems.
And the shame is Apple could have been a world leader but no they walled in there world and now control every thing the users of there products do and use.For a company that has such a small percent of the computers in the world they get more reviews and front page time than all the other companies put together , and that is not because they are any better. It is one of the most off balance information pushes of any company I have ever seen.
All of the Mag's out in cyberland have stopped being balanced in there reviews and are pushing there personal views to the users . The News company that stops this first will be one of the honest ones to read. ReplyBoscoH approved this comment
Reply
This reminded me of a comment I made on an old post about Bill Gates raising money from Billionaires:Top 10 Reasons Steve Jobs is not mentioned:
10. He claimed that parking in handicapped spots is charity, since it forces the needy to help themselves.
9. He would right a check, but that requires pen input.
8. He is waiting for his patent on "making charitable donations" to be approved.
7. He said he would donate once he
figures out how to embed iAds into the brains of those who accept his help.6. He said he will only participate if the recipients are organ donors.
5. He left his wallet in his other turtleneck.
4. Since 40 other billionaires are doing it, he rejected the offer since it "duplicated functionality".
3. He will wait 4 years to announce iDonate.... donations done the "right way"
2. He asked if iPhone 4 bumpers were a valid form of payment.
1. He wrote a check but took it away when Bill Gates held it wrong.
This sounds a lot worse than it really is. All Apple is doing is covering their arse legally. If someone were to create a "donation" app that ended up being for personal profit instead of actually being donated to a charity, Apple would never hear the end of it legally. Since Apple moderates their app store they, like any other company whose legal standing depended on it would, have chosen to require you to use a browser on the internet where they legally have no control and thus are released of any legal responsibility for what you spend your money on. Whereas, Google does not control the content that is in the Android App store and leaves all responsibility on safe purchasing to the user from the get go.For example look at digital physical media (DVD's Blu-Ray's and the like) while it is completely legal to rip them to a purely digital format for personal use most major companies will not allow you to do so with their native software because they just don't want to deal with the what if. Reply
Tank promoted this comment
In order to view comments on gizmodo.com you need to enable JavaScript.
If you are using Firefox and NoScript addon, please mark gizmodo.com as trusted.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Why Does Apple Make Donation Apps So Hard?
'); 
via gizmodo.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment