App Rejection: Guideline 4.2 - Design

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review
Tomato OP
Created Dec ’19
Replies 3
Boosts 0
Views 799
Participants 3

I have a desktop application that allows the user to use it fully without limiations for a week. After one week, it will validate their in-app purchase status. I'll make a simple case. Let me suppose that the application allows them to draw a triangle. After the expiration, they can still draw a triangle. But it won't let them save it as an image to disk after expiration. For the past several months, many of my desktop applications have this free-for-1-week-with-IAP business style. And I never had a problem with reviewers in this regard. This time, I've been hit with the following rejection description.


Guideline 4.2 - Design


We found that your app provides a limited set of features and functionality to users and is therefore not appropriate for the App Store. Specifically, the app requires an in-app purchase after 1 week to continue use.


Next Steps


We encourage you to review your app concept and evaluate whether you can incorporate additional features to enhance the user experience.


First, I had no idea what the problem this reviewer is saying. I now suppose that he or she has rejected it because the application would be no use after one week. If I'm right, then so what!? I don't really have a problem if every app is treated in the same way. But if this app is rejected because the user will have no use without a purchase after one week, then many of them, if not all, subscription-based apps also have to go? I have asked the reviewer why I need to enterain the user further after one week of free trial. And he or she has ignored my question so far.


So what do you think? Thanks.


P.S. I see a lot of subscription-based desktop applications at Mac App Store. And I had one desktop application several months ago with a subscription IAP. The reviewer rejected it because it's not a news app and therefore the subscription IAP is not allowed, he or she said.

Replies  3
Boosts  0
Views  799
Participants  3
Tomato OP
Dec ’19

I don't necessarily mean to critisize how Apple, Inc. runs App Store and Mac App Store. But dealing with their reviewers is like playing the Russian roulette. Most reviewers find no problem if I give users one week of free trial and then validate their in app purchase status. But one reviewer now says no. Some reviewers seem to accept the idea that a desktop application can have a subscription-based IAP. Mine was rejected several months ago. It's very difficult for me to figure out what is acceptable and what is not.

0
PBK OP
Dec ’19

You may have a 'lite' version and a 'full' version but you can't have a 'no' version. The 'lite' version can operate as a 'full' version for one week and then convert to the 'lite' version.


In your case you state that "(a)fter the expiration, they can still draw a triangle. But it won't let them save it as an image to disk after expiration." If this is the case then appeal the rejection stating that:

"After one week the user does NOT need to purchase an IAP if they just want to draw a triangle. They need to purchase the IAP only if they want to save the triangle. So without purchasing an IAP the user can draw triangles, and circles and even squares - they just can't save it."


If that functionality is sufficient, you may pass review. But if that functionality is not sufficient you will have to allow them to do something more - perhaps draw rectangles.

0
KMT OP
Dec ’19

>It's very difficult for me to figure out what is acceptable and what is not.


Welcome to the app store, and yes, bit of a shell game sometimes. In the past, some devs would self-reject, wait a bit and then re-submit, rolling the dice in the hope they'd get a different reviewer.


No idea if that can still be tried/applied, but hey...

0
App Rejection: Guideline 4.2 - Design
First post date Last post date
 
 
Q