33 ms·

App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

561 points by alin23 4y ago

joeld42 4y ago
I don't agree with apple that this should be rejected, but it does seem like something that would work better as a web app. Also then it would be available to people on other platforms as well.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  They have a weird little back and forth going in this regard, lots of the stuff on their app store is basically a webpage (or literally one, if it's a webview app) but then they keep holding features back from Safari so you need to be on the store to access them. I don't envy people in that situation, where you've got a good website but your iOS users want one or two small features that can only be offered via the app store.
- RicoElectrico 4y ago
  With the nerfing of web apps this is too fscking anti-competitive of Apple. If web apps were in fact first-class (or even first-and-a-half class) citizens, I would give them a pass.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  I honestly sometimes wish apple had kept to its original plan of only having web apps instead of native apps. I hate constantly being told to download some app for something that works perfectly fine as a website.
  - projektfu 4y ago
    Especially when they decided to deliberately break the web app to get you on the app.
amadeuspagel 4y ago
Why not make it a web app, though?
berry_sortoro 4y ago
jeffybefffy519 4y ago
What a joke, if they reject it then there should be concrete reasons given to the developer otherwise this is just nonsense.
sp332 4y ago
It's a bummer obviously, but is there an actual reason not to just use the website?
- mongol 4y ago
  Apps are more monetizable.
- icelancer 4y ago
  a huge amount of mobile users don't know what a "website" is and just use apps
  - twobitshifter 4y ago
    But they usually use the google app to find info, rather than going to the app store.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  - available without internet - you can have personalisation in the app without needing to create an account - can have access to location without asking the user every time
  - jakear 4y ago
    - use a service worker - use local storage - persist previous location, have quick way to use a map or request location if needed
    - ccouzens 4y ago
      Doesn't local storage expire if you don't use a site for 7 days in Safari? https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocking-and-more/ https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocki... ("7-Day Cap on All Script-Writeable Storage" heading about half way down)
      - 4y ago
kevingadd 4y ago
Mildly frustrating to see the author waste so much time and energy before coming to the correct conclusion: > But I think they just don't like the idea of the app, and no matter what I add to it, they won't accept it. It's awful how gatekeepers usually behave this way instead of coming out and telling you that you should stop and they're never going to approve your product, since that usually is how it works. On the bright side if he was actually using Google Sheets as his data backend, Google was going to shut the sheet down permanently eventually and maybe ban the account, so he dodged a bullet.
- xmonkee 4y ago
  >On the bright side if he was actually using Google Sheets as his data backend, Google was going to shut the sheet down permanently eventually and maybe ban the account, so he dodged a bullet. I thought google encouraged using their google sheets APIs? I'm clearly wrong. Do you have a source for this?
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    I've had them automatically disable two different sheets I was using via the API for "suspicious behavior" without an explanation. There's no way to get them re-enabled.
factorialboy 4y ago
If the mafia doesn't like your store, you can't offer your product.
- yazzku 4y ago
  Fanboys triggered.
trebbble 4y ago
They've done this since the early days of the app store. Mostly-content apps without really broad appeal have long carried a high risk of rejection. > Homescreen widgets: utterly useless, but can't get more iOS-y and less webapp-y than this, right? This especially, but really the whole post reads like the system working as intended. Granted (as the author notes) way too much shit gets through anyway, but that's not an excuse to do even worse. I do, as a user, wish they'd tighten up the rules a lot and improve enforcement. I'm quite sure it'd improve my experience on the store (and probably on the web—imagine how much better the Reddit site would get, probably overnight, if their app got pulled over not being well-justified).
- smoldesu 4y ago
  I think Apple has every right to tighten up their first-party App Store, but they should also acknowledge the user's right to install what they want. Maybe some people do want a "too simple" app, and I don't think Apple has the right to tell the user what is-and-isn't appropriate. It's common sense. This would be a great time for them to add a Developer Mode a-la Android, and also start purging their own shopfronts. If Apple genuinely believes they can compete in a free market, they should have no problem restocking their store.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    There are other products people can buy if they want to install random apps. At this point, everybody knows what the iPhone ecosystem is about.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      How are users aware of the existence of "too-simple" random apps they're missing out on, if those apps were banned from the App Store?
    - xg15 4y ago
      I don't. Please tell me.
Jonovono 4y ago
Yep, I got this rejection when I made this tipping app (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tip-69/id1460610078 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tip-69/id1460610078). I went on to add OCR detection for receipts so you don't have to type in the amount, I added more tipping modes, I added split bill functionality, and eventually added an entire social network with the ability to share your receipt for the world to see, like or comment on. Must have spent months trying to get approved by Apple. I'd rather no one ask me why.
- ece 4y ago
  You have IAPs.
- mafen 4y ago
  Why?
  - Jonovono 4y ago
    Once you set your mind to something you gotta see it through.
- Aloha 4y ago
  Huh, that looks useful for me!
  - Jonovono 4y ago
    That's what I tried telling them! "Apple, yes, there is lots of tipping apps. But do any easily tell you what to tip so your bill total ends in something dumb like 69? no!"
- alin23 4y ago
  Yep, the social network function is also my next go-to for getting this app accepted. Glad to hear it at least worked for someone, gives me hope. I'm thinking of adding an IRC client so that people that go to the same festival can talk about it in the days before the event, but it's all anonymous and ephemeral so I don't get into GDPR and privacy territory.
wswope 4y ago
Apple, by walling their garden, have essentially used their hegemony to steal billions of dollars in potential revenue from developers. Think of how much innovation has been blocked by them intentionally gimping iOS Safari to prevent web apps from competing with native ones. Remember this when reviewing job applications, folks. Apple, Google, and Facebook employees, current and former, are morally derelict and have profited from harming our society - treat them with reciprocity.
- kjoedion 4y ago
  Apple, by creating the iPhone and a standardized App Store, have essentially created billions of revenue for developers throughout the years. I find your sense of entitlement morally derelict.
  - andybak 4y ago
    And I find your preference for hyperbole mildly distasteful.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Apple, by creating the iPhone and taxing every app purchase, have single-handedly lifted billions of dollars out of the pockets of those developers they're supposedly helping. So yes, they're entitled to 'something' because clearly Apple thinks they're entitled to the money of thousands of developers. Maybe they are, but the only way to find out is opening their platform, which they're obviously too afraid to do even as an experiment. They know apps like TikTok, Facebook and Fortnite have the ability to tip the scales away from their favor; so why shouldn't they? Why doesn't the customer have a right to decide?
  - mypalmike 4y ago
    You have a reasonable counterpoint. Maybe ditch the personal attack?
  - domador 4y ago
    Let's see if I can paraphrase your argument: "The iPhone and the App Store exist, therefore developers should be thankful they exist regardless of how Apple treats them as they try to get their apps approved."
nate 4y ago
Ran into the exact same problem with a very simple camera app I made. Camera app was completely gesture based. So you never had to find a button to quickly flip the camera to the other side of the phone or find the button to start/stop recording. It made using a camera a lot quicker to get multiple shots of a scene and your reaction shot. Also added in stabilization to the front lens, which was easy but wasn't enabled at the time in the native camera app. I got the "too simple" response. Which was the whole point. A camera with zero buttons. I still pointed out the 5 or 7 features it had that technically the iOS camera wasn't doing. I would get a different reason back then. So I'd argue a different point. Then after weeks of this, it came back with the "too simple" reason again. And I was left with the same conclusion. I don't think Apple wants anyone "outsimpling" their camera app. Maybe if I had added a social network to it or filters or something I could have finally gotten it approved. But I lost the desire to keep fighting :) (Just by posting this, now I fear I broke some kind of TOS, and can never publish an iOS app again?)
- koheripbal 4y ago
  The real reason is that they don't want more apps. There are too many, so any small independent dev has an uphill battle getting their app approved.
  - megablast 4y ago
    Exactly. The reviewer isn’t thinking about the big picture. It’s so weird people think this. As if the Ceo is reviewing every app.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    Or they could let the users and developers decide how many apps are too many apps.z
    - MiddleEndian 4y ago
      Letting people install programs without a store!? Ridiculous!
  - 4y ago
T3RMINATED 4y ago
akmarinov 4y ago
And that's why we should open up stores by law if necessary. Apple shouldn't be the one to tell me what kind of apps I can have on the device I've bought with my money.
- fzfaa 4y ago
  You already knew what you were getting into when you bought it, and Apple is far from having a monopoly.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    I feel like this is a counter productive non-solution. The free market, in this case, isn't as free and full of competition as we would like. Smartphone OS's are basically a duopoly, and Android has serious challenges of its own. That being said, a choice has to be made because two different entities have mutually exclusive rights: Do you side with an individuals' right to install whatever they want on a device they purchased? Or, a large company's right to restrict devices however they see fit?
    - eastof 4y ago
      Except that it takes 5 mins even for a non-technical person to install CalyxOS and you get full control over your device and what apps you install using between FDroid and Aurora Store with 100% feature parity with mainline Android.
    - trebbble 4y ago
      There's competition of regulatory regimes—mandatory and strict (could be stricter, IMO) vs. optional and looser. Absent government outlawing a bunch of the bad behavior Apple tries to curb, I like being free to have that choice to opt into their regime. When corporate dragnet spying and other hostile bullshit is outlawed and the laws are effectively enforced, sure, I'd want Apple to tear down the walls on their garden. (please don't just post "but you wouldn't have to use alt stores!" in response—it's been done to death on here, and everywhere else, differences opinion are apparently irreconcilable and we're not likely to gain any ground here today, and Android's still kickin', so the option for that kind of environment does exist for those who want it) Amusingly, advocacy of optional regulatory regimes enforced by corporations is usually a right-Libertarian position. Not that that's necessarily a point in its favor (see again: I'd much prefer this crap simply be illegal) but those folks do love free markets.
fawres 4y ago
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
Seems fine. The original version was just a wrapper around a web page. There’s absolutely no reason for that to be an app. Tarting it up with shit that no one wants or needs doesn’t change the fact that this would be just fine as a web page.
jjcon 4y ago
I assume you have to pay the $99 annual dev fee to submit apps for review? I wonder how much Apple makes on unused dev fees, I'm sure not tons but it does seems like they should offer partial refunds if they refuse to work with devs.
epgui 4y ago
I also don't think this app should have been rejected. However, if we assume that the rejection policy was correct (just for the sake of argument), I don't see how adding things like parallax, push notifications, or even a map, makes the application substantially different in the context of this rejection.
- tomcam 4y ago
  Did you read TFA? Apple didn't explain why the app was too simple, so OP had to complex it up blindly b/c they offered no guidance.
  - epgui 4y ago
    I did read TFA, did you read TFC? haha.
ssalka 4y ago
Is jailbreaking still a thing? Can it make a comeback?
fevangelou 4y ago
Out of curiosity, since iOS seems to have a ~20% share in Romania, why not launch on Android first (which makes business sense at ~80% market share)? And if Apple keeps dicking around, at least make it easy for the mobile site to be installed as a web app to iOS homescreens. @Apple Seriously?
- haunter 4y ago
  Android users are significantly less likely to pay for an app because by default you can install any apk file on Android. Basically piracy is rampant. On iOS you have to go through the jailbreaking process first to do the same.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > Basically piracy is rampant. This is true in a limited sense. Pretty much any app that relies on Google Play Services has a sort of DRM built-in, you can package it into an APK but it won't let you use the app without buying it. Installing it on a device without Google Play Services won't let it run at all. Kinda scummy, but a decent tradeoff to keep pure AOSP devices without DRM.
  - shmde 4y ago
    > Android users are significantly less likely to pay for an app. True. > because by default you can install any apk file on Android. False, its because majority android apps are freemiums with shitload amount of ads, that was Google's way of introducing the app store to the masses and particularly the reason why android even survived. People try to make the general population the villain that they don't like to pay,but Google's whole business model revolved around showing ads on apps also I have rarely found irl people in my college/work life who have actually tried installing apks outside store. In short, I hope you can put the blame on Google for making people addicted to the ad infested model.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    > because by default you can install any apk file on Android. Basically piracy is rampant. I think you're overestimating the number of people who both know you're and can be bothered. Even in tech circles I don't personally know anyone doing this. People may not be paying for apps, but the piracy is not rampant either.
EGreg 4y ago
This is actually great news for web developers. Everything he listed on the second try will soon be available on the Web. Why make a native app, indeed? Notifications coming in iOS 16 Share button has long been available (navigator.share) Location - implemented long ago Buy - ApplePay for the Web Add to calendar, subscribe to calendar is possible Sending emails and SMS is possible WebRTC and speaking with people in real time Even the Contact Picker for adding contacts from your address book! You can turn it on right now in "experimental" features. Does anyone know if it's coming in iOS 16?
Barrin92 4y ago
With the Digital Markets act coming into power and the author hailing from Romania the one light at the end of the tunnel is that this soon will be over and at the very least users will be able to sideload your app. At this point I wouldn't waste any more time trying to appease the App Store bureaucracy.
ralusek 4y ago
Please just support PWAs.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  This isn't an all-or-nothing thing. iOS 15 included several PWA-related improvements, and a 2023 iOS 16 update will bring Web Push to iOS. https://www.simicart.com/blog/pwa-ios-15/ https://www.simicart.com/blog/pwa-ios-15/
kurupt213 4y ago
you have to include a feature that allows apple to further monetize your users
jiggywiggy 4y ago
App store submissions are a pain in the ass. And a mess. The appstore connect website keeps giving timeouts and errors. One client took me 2 hours to create all products manually. Scripts wouldn't run. I submit around 5-10 apps per month. Much more more automized updates, same codebase, sort of same content. The process is pretty standardized. 50 procent is accepted no problem. 50 procent is rejected. They refer to vague guidelines written by lawyers. And when asked for specification often refuse to give an answer. IAP products are reviewed independently so if they are not in sync that causes an app reject without notifying you. All of it sucks. Apple makes it complicated on purpose and they don't care much for new small developers.
- strongpigeon 4y ago
  Seriously, what's up with App Store Connect crapping out so often. It's just generally so slow too. And the IAP thing you mention... Happened to me except they approved the app without the IAPs?! Users would just see these IAPs as unavailable until I had to resubmit a whole new build.
  - jiggywiggy 4y ago
    Yeah that also happened this week. It's one big mess. And they dare giving developers any form of criticism. I submitted a bug issue once over the phone. She was nice. Took me two weeks to submit all kinds of request of screen recordings and browser details. All i got back was after 2 weeks is to update my safari and see if it keeps happening. Once the giant is taken down, there will be few left rooting for them.
strongpigeon 4y ago
This sucks... I'm sorry you had to go through this. The App Store review process is just pretty bad. It's especially frustrating when you see downright shitty apps on the store. The "black-box" aspect of it makes it that much more kafkaesque too. When I first submitted my app on there, they rejected it and complained that I used HealthKit but didn't mention it in the app description. The thing is, I did. My app description had a list of "highlighted features", one them being "Apple health integration". I was about to file an appeal, but then I saw a couple other apps with "Integrates with Apple Health" on its own line in the description. Figured that's probably what they were looking for (even though the guidelines don't explicitly say that) so I changed it and boom, the app was approved. I hate it, but it's not worth my time or the risk to fight it. For what it's worth, I think your app looks really good!
- oneplane 4y ago
  I wouldn't be too surprised if they simply hire armies of reviewers that simply work through a checklist with limited room for interpretation/personal evaluation. I a way, they could just publish their internal checklist to make this process better for everyone, but I suspect it might cause bad actors to find ways to comply with the rules and still deliver crap to the store; almost like the rules they currently use are security by obscurity (with the side-effect of rejecting apps for seemingly random reasons).
  - dinkledunk 4y ago
    I would be, considering how inconsistent the reviewers are.
- rish1_2 4y ago
  I had 5 - 6 rejection before I got it exactly right with Apple on "Integrates With Apple". It was a total nightmare! Now I finally have my app on the App store. All this to get access to step count. I couldn't just drop the functionality after working on it for so long but it wasn't a critical one at best for the app's functionality. My app's main functionality is rearranging the google calendar and getting those tasks placed correctly without any context switching or time wasting. Here's my ios App store link: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/atomic-life/id1594368125 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/atomic-life/id1594368125.
awinter-py 4y ago
US legislature has been flirting with 3rd party app stores for a while https://www.macobserver.com/news/open-app-markets-act/ https://www.macobserver.com/news/open-app-markets-act/ As an alternative, would be interesting to offer third party review for the existing store. Offer pay-to-expedite, more transparency, preapproval before people start building, clearer guidelines on competition ('too many flashlight apps already').
- MiddleEndian 4y ago
  Let's ditch the stores entirely.
  - zamalek 4y ago
    Or give people the choice to use zero or more stores. I for one really enjoy consistency when it comes to automatic updates (and would actively seek apps on the Windows store for this reason, before switching to Linux, partially for this reason).
cercatrova 4y ago
I want app stores to be opened up, by law if necessary, but I also agree with Apple here that this app is too similar to a webpage to really be necessary. Users can simply visit a website that has all this data already, and so I believe Apple was correct in their rejection. However, you should have an alternate way of installing such an app, through sideloading or simply being able to be distributed on another app store, analogous to Android's F-Droid.
normalhappy 4y ago
Apple is likely denying you because they are stealing your idea for iOS 16 and don't want the competition.
Pulcinella 4y ago
The weird thing is I wouldn’t even consider this to be “too simple.” There are far, far more simple apps on the App Store. This is basically just a conference app, which arent usually much more complex than this and are basically just a (usually very ugly) wrapper for a website. At least this is trying to fit in with the visual style of the platform.
samsepi0l 4y ago
Write the same app but in React Native. All the extra boilerplate it includes will pad the code out a lot, and they'll probably assuming that it must be a legit use case for someone to go to that effort. But resubmit under a different app name. I bet it goes through.
tqkxzugoaupvwqr 4y ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple stalls the developer to copy the idea and add an events app or integrate it into maps. They’ve done similar things in the past.
lawgimenez 4y ago
Our app has been using the same purpose string on why we needed the camera. We have submitted over 50 updates for two years. Then all of a sudden our app was rejected with “Revise the purpose string in your app’s Info.plist file for the camera to explain why your app needs access and include an example of how the user's data will be used.” I argued back and forth with whoever was reviewing for Apple at that moment. After 3 hours our app was approved. Smh.
savrajsingh 4y ago
The frustrating part here is you're a straight up dev humbly working on features and have an app you want in the store. Meanwhile, a quick search of the store yields tons of spammy apps that are definitely just wrapping a web-site or, worse, designed to scam people out of their money via in-app purchases.
neither_color 4y ago
My first app was rejected for the same reason. I think if the first reviewer is having a bad day you're out of luck, and then the next reviewer is going to see the history and feel empowered to do the same
c-fe 4y ago
Its weird. This app looks significantly more complex than the simple note taking app I developed [1] and I managed to publish mine without any concern. [1] https://cfx.lu/remindme https://cfx.lu/remindme
- googlryas 4y ago
  You may want to delete this comment, or at least the link to your site, because you may just notify apple reviewers that your app should be rejected.
LastTrain 4y ago
Maybe they see through your attempts to simply use more IOS features as just that, and that you aren't really addressing the core issue which is - why do you need to publish an app to essentially view a google docs spreadsheet?
mastazi 4y ago
Some apps are "too simple" but at the same time, something along these lines is OK by Apple's standards: "Thanks for purchasing the Acme Kettle! In order to boil your water, you need to download an app! But don't worry, it's easy! You just need to create an account, enter your personal data, accept our legally binding terms and conditions and verify your phone number and your email, "for your safety"! Oh and we will push mandatory OTA updates to your kettle's firmware! We may remove functionality to your Kettle from time to time, to protect you and your loved ones! Release Notes v 0.0.112 - we are sunsetting the "boiling" functionality. the ability to boil water has been removed. Acme Corporation recommends using the kettle as a jug, it's ideal for cold drinks!"
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Or re-enabling the "boiling" functionality requires upgrading to their subscription plan, to help pay for their online service which checks that you are using official Acme branded water.
- gcheong 4y ago
  This is exactly why I didn't get the Joule sous vide immersion circulator despite it being recommended by some big name sites when it first came out. Why would I get something for cooking that can't be used without an app on a phone?
alanchen 4y ago
F* App Store, let's make side-loading a legal requirement.
LastTrain 4y ago
Maybe they see your attempts to find a loophole by using more native IOS functionality as just that, and they still think your app is just a fancy way to, essentially, look at a google spreadsheet.
Rackedup 4y ago
The phone app on the iphone is too simple... it doesn't even block spam
TruthWillHurt 4y ago
[flagged]
clord 4y ago
While I agree that web apps would be a better platform for the majority of this information… simplicity is not the way to express it. I’d love to see some memes of classic mac apps and this email stuck to it.
chocolol 4y ago
I had this happen. What they want to see is things that really use the phones features or something that makes it mobile This frustrated me at first but then i did some thinking and came up with some ideas. I got mine over the line by having a favorites list that uses core data and the ability to sent notification reminders. Both are using core aspects of iPhone so more likely to be considered unique enough for App Store.
lizardactivist 4y ago
My friend, it's possible you are about to get Apple'd. That is to say, Apple may steal your idea and publish an app just like this, because it really is a great idea.
elwell 4y ago
Chrome Web Store has the opposite view: your extension can get rejected if it has more than one purpose. Our extension got taken down that replaced all in-page ads with ads from our network while paying the user in a certain Ethereum token for every ad impression they see. The ostensible rejection reason being that it both replaced ads & served as a crypto wallet.
kube-system 4y ago
This sucks as a developer and I sympathize. But, I absolutely hate when I have to download an app for something that could have been a website.
- Biganon 4y ago
  A few years ago I had made a website that worked perfectly as a website. Many people asked "why isn't it an app??" Guess you can't make everyone happy
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    Only developers will ask for it to be a website. Normal people are perfectly fine with an app.
LeoPanthera 4y ago
Maybe this is a controversial opinion but I think I agree with Apple here. The Google and Microsoft stores are absolutely full of completely useless featureless apps, many of which exist only to trick you into thinking that it is something else. My general mental rule is "could this app be a website"? And in this case it absolutely could be.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Especially now that you can add a website as an icon to the home screen and it largely feels like a real app.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    That feature is much too hidden to consider it a viable option for the mainsteam.
- mjamesaustin 4y ago
  Ah, so Reddit for example should not be allowed an app?
  - LeoPanthera 4y ago
    I mean, that's a bad example, the Reddit app is absolute garbage.
- Loeffelmann 4y ago
  I guess airbnb shouldn't have an app
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Or Uber, Lyft, Spotify, Netflix, food delivery sites, basically any website (according to the GP)
    - ricardobeat 4y ago
dvdsgl 4y ago
We created https://www.glideapps.com/ https://www.glideapps.com/ for the niche apps that people want, but Apple doesn't! Also powered by Google Sheets, as OP's app is.
insane_dreamer 4y ago
"too simple" is such a bullshit response; Apple should stick to privacy/security/legal concerns when reviewing apps
rickspencer3 4y ago
What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a developer account, not to mention that I can't side load something someone else made. I get that iPhones are nifty and all, but I don't see how people can spend that money on a device that locks the owner out of basic functionally. Android is not perfect, but at least I am able to, you know, use my phone as I see fit.
- ausbah 4y ago
  my guess is simple because 99% of people have their needs met by the app store and / or have no interest in side loading because it's too technical for too little benefit
  - j-bos 4y ago
    This applies to android as well
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - salawat 4y ago
    ...The too technical part being self-inflicted by the requirement for yearly hundred bux and a working mastery of cryptography utils.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    It's 30 seconds to sideload an app on Android. Many good apps are available by sideload only. They seem to do well enough.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Except what you just said isn't true. Yes, Apple charges for developer accounts that lets you publish to the AppStore or even privately. But you can get a free version that lets you push to devices locally. So if you want to distribute your app not in the store you can do so as long as you release the source so other people can build it on their free account.
whoopsie 4y ago
Funny as hell… Apple keeps featuring out fintech app, which is image lock up for image lockup the exact same as our website.
whoopsie 4y ago
Apple has repeatedly featured my fintech’s app. Almost every corner is designed to be nearly the same as our website… to boot the web has a few more functionalities.
derac 4y ago
IMO morally we should not support closed platforms. Technical people and especially developers are more responsible than others. I find the apologia around this disturbing.
ja27 4y ago
Been there. I have an iOS app that’s been a solid top 100 in it’s category and has been featured multiple times on the App Store. I decided to port it to macOS mostly as an experiment but a few reviews had asked for it. It was a big pain (pre-Catalyst or anything else). But I got it working well enough and thought it looked decent. I submitted it only to get it kicked back with the “too simple” rejection. Yeah, it’s simple, but people love it and use it. I didn’t even bother appealing.
paulryanrogers 4y ago
Could it be there is a tacit policy of always reject first, like government benefits, as a first pass filter?
stavrus 4y ago
Is this a new requirement? I remember for Kubecon Seattle 2018 using an iOS app (named KubeCon+CNC) that was nothing more than a schedule viewer for the event. It didn't even use native views and given how narrow the audience for the app was -- attendees for one of two 3-day conferences -- I was surprised at the time that it even existed as an app and had made it past the app store review. I also know of at least one app, a sanitary self-certification app that allows your entry into a European country by generating a QR code to display, that is also basically a shell around a simple web app with a form. It absolutely should be an app given how convenient it makes accessing the entry requirements and generated QR code, but its existence does make these app store requirements seem absolutely arbitrary.
julienmarie 4y ago
Weirdly a few years ago (7?) I made the most stupid app for a friend. The app was really bad and coded with my feet as I never did a mobile app. It was based on Ionic and just had one screen. It was a feeding calculator for horses for a brand of horse feeds. You input the weight of the animal, the age and it's level of activity and it calculated how much feed to give daily and what type of feed. The app was clunky, outright bad. It got approved on the first try. I was surprised.
- guessbest 4y ago
  My experience is that if they don't understand the market, they tend to approve. But if they understand the market, the reviewer might make the determination that market is overcrowded, so the appeal they are looking for is "differentiation". Yes, I don't work for Apple.
  - guessbest 4y ago
    Thinking more on this, I'm guessing a lot of rejections come from having an application that depends entirely on receiving network data.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
> > > Hello, > > Thank you for your response. We encourage you to consider ways to make your app stand out. > We understand that it can be difficult to determine what the best experience is to offer your users. > While there isn’t one set answer that works for every app, the following iOS development videos offer great >information for helping understand how your app can provide a great user experience: – Essential Design Principles – >Design Tips for Great Games > You may also want to review the Human Interface Guidelines available on Apple Developer. > Best regards, > App Store Review That is some passive aggressive, nose all the way in the air, *bullshit*. Be better than this Apple.
goerz 4y ago
Even as a consumer, Apple’s arbitrary enforcement of made-up rules is infuriating. One of my most-used apps is a radio streaming app “MusiCharts”. It hasn’t been updated in years because (according to the developer) Apple refuses to let him update the app since they think it’s too trivial. Yet, it is the only radio streaming app I’ve found that can scobble to Last.fm, and it provides huge value to me. Hopefully, it will survive a few more iOS updates.
fishfood23 4y ago
Nothing is as useless as Faceketeer, and that got approved.
zascrash 4y ago
As someone learning iOS development this is really off-putting. Hopefully things works out to op.
Waterluvian 4y ago
Anyone remember when apps were new and there was that gem app that did nothing other than proving you can spend $1000 on an app? I’m guessing this is related to that kind of thing.
tiku 4y ago
Why doesn't Apple make a section for lower tier apps? Or just a notice, that it doesn't meet the "high" standards but you can download it and it is safe.
- kevincox 4y ago
  Maybe it isn't worth the cost of reviewing them and dealing with refunds and support?
major505 4y ago
Apple manual review can be a pain in the ass. Thats why usually I launch most of my apps first in android. If there's a demand, then I do the IOs version.
jrockway 4y ago
I had a moment of disillusion when I first bought an iPhone. I came from Android, and when you open up the Marketplace, 99.9999% of the apps are useless piles of shit. I got an iPhone, and was so excited to open up the App Store. I did, and I found that 99.999% of the apps were useless piles of shit, many of which didn't even run on my devices. I have no idea what Apple is trying to achieve with the App Store. If every app were a Top 10, that would be amazing, and that's what you'd think you get from all the human curation. (How can every app in an app store be the best? Reality distortion field, trust me.) Instead, you just spend a million hours getting your crap app through human reviews until the human is like "you know what? FUCK IT" and they just let it in. The result is an App Store that's probably going to have laws made against it, for absolutely no gain for the end user. I don't get it.
- davidkuennen 4y ago
  As an app developer this is my experience as well. It's way easier to get good ratings on the App Store than on the Play Store. I was confused why, until I noticed that it's just that the standards for apps of iOS users are way lower. There is so much trash around. Especially trash that wants to scam you for money and gets thrown into your face at the top of the list. They crave for anything that isn't a complete pile of shit. On Android it's different. There is lots of good apps and thus users are way more critical even if the app is the exact same one as on the App Store.
throwaway892238 4y ago
We need a law to open up these devices. Just because it's a Duopoloy instead of a Monopoly doesn't mean we should be forced into using a device only the way these companies dictate. The whole idea of the App Store is, to me, actually worse than no App Store at all. If you want to find popular software, normally you google for it, and go with the recommendations from a trustworthy publication. Yes there is malware on the internet, but there is also malware in the App Store! Let the market try to solve these problems since Apple and Google can't.
- cma 4y ago
  The App store taxes minus their expenses is more than federal taxes, and even taxes you if you make a net loss unlike the government.
- bergenty 4y ago
  There really isn’t all that much malware on the App Store. I like the way things are to be honest, apple does its best to protect my device, ecosystem and privacy and it works for me without having to expend brain cycles. If I wanted an open phone I would just jailbreak the iPhone or get an android.
  - TGRush 4y ago
    Except Apple is also heavily going against Jailbreaking, with multiple lawsuits in the past, and system updates made specifically to patch them out, and nothing else. Sure, you can stay on older iOS Versions, but you would be loosing actual improvements
vivegi 4y ago
The app store is an abomination. Don't even get me started on the app store ensures security and privacy of users. If that is the case, they would not be having apps that use in-app browsers that are a security and privacy sinkhole. (TikTok and Instagram to name two of the top apps using in-app browsers) It is just a rent-seeking racket and enough people are drinking the koolaid keeping this flywheel moving. All 'app store' platforms by bigtech players AAPL, MSFT and GOOG are guilty of arbitrary high-handedness and developer apathy.
personjerry 4y ago
I made a button that just plays the WRONG sound clip from Trump. Rejected for being too simple. Meanwhile the same app already on the App Store features a dozen ads, popping up as soon as you open the app, before you click the button, after you click the button, and all around the button. I guess those are the features they're looking for.
Curzel 4y ago
> Buy tickets button (which should always point you to the correct website to get tickets from) There you go, being tickets "digital", Apple wants a 30% cut, and they are basically forcing you to implement in-app payments. It sucks man! Try change the wording from "Buy Tickets" to "Get more information" or "Visit Website" to get around the review process, and work from there
butz 4y ago
Please, build MORE simple apps. I would pay for a suite of simple Android applications that respect privacy, take least amount of "disk" space and RAM, load and work as fast as platform allows it. Replacements for bloated system apps, like calendar, messages, email etc., also some other apps like qr reader, notes and similar.
- chakkepolja 4y ago
  There's some of these on F-droid.
gauddasa 4y ago
In this case, Apple is blatantly honest and they can not be clearer than that. Web standards (like JS, CSS and HTML5) for made with tremendous effort to serve entire humanity. I too recommend to provide web based service whenever possible and publish an app only if you rely on some cutting edge technology that is not a part of web standard yet. Think about it.
faebi 4y ago
I still think that this is a side effect of having a broken discoverability in the app store. It's very hard to find new apps, it's even harder to actually try them, and it's extremely hard to find something good. I literally need 100's of touches to install and uninstall 10 apps.
intrasight 4y ago
First to OP: Why are you denying users the use of your service by beating this dead horse? Does that really in any way serve your users? The current state of affairs with iOS is the context is which we must make decisions. So many of the posts here strike me as useless complaining about the reality on the ground which cannot be changed. You want to hack? Simple - get an Android or PinePhone. You want to share your hacks with friends? Simple - make a PWA. You want to make an app for the general public and don't want to deal with app store bureaucracy? Simple - make a PWA. Your app requires native features? Then learn to navigate the app store approval process. I have several friends and colleagues who have launched public apps. Some went the PWA route. Some went the app store route. All have achieved their mission. It's informative to hear their answers as to their choice. Those that choose the PWA route mostly did so because they already had a web service, and just wanted a good mobile version. Those that went the app store route said in effect that it's not really an app (in the minds of their user audience) if it's not in the app store, and were not already providing some service via the web. Granted this is a small sampling of half a dozen. I would love to have a wider sample to review as I am interested in transitioning from desktop web to mobile app development, and want to invest myself in a good foundation. Does anyone know of a good (and recent) article where developers of successful apps are interviewed and ask to explain their platform decisions? A final comment is this. I think Apple is working to make PWAs a viable choice partially to reduce their approval burden and incentivize developers of "simple" apps - like that of the OP - to go the PWA route.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  This completely unsympathetic and unempathetic comment elides the root problem: it isn’t that Apple exercises strict oversight over its App Store, it’s that 1) that oversight is applied inconsistently, and 2) they do not provide transparency into the specifics of their oversight. This whole situation could have been avoided if the reviewers had been specific about what they took issue with, instead of wasting valuable developer time. That you are blaming a fellow developer is most unbecoming.
  - intrasight 4y ago
    I may be unsympathetic but I am most certainly not blaming the developer.
solarkraft 4y ago
As somebody opposed to their monopoly on software on iPhones, I'm happy they keep giving easy to point out examples for why.

561 points by alin23 4y ago

I don't agree with apple that this should be rejected, but it does seem like something that would work better as a web app. Also then it would be available to people on other platforms as well.

kevingadd 4y ago
They have a weird little back and forth going in this regard, lots of the stuff on their app store is basically a webpage (or literally one, if it's a webview app) but then they keep holding features back from Safari so you need to be on the store to access them. I don't envy people in that situation, where you've got a good website but your iOS users want one or two small features that can only be offered via the app store.
RicoElectrico 4y ago
With the nerfing of web apps this is too fscking anti-competitive of Apple. If web apps were in fact first-class (or even first-and-a-half class) citizens, I would give them a pass.
cortesoft 4y ago
I honestly sometimes wish apple had kept to its original plan of only having web apps instead of native apps. I hate constantly being told to download some app for something that works perfectly fine as a website.
- projektfu 4y ago
  Especially when they decided to deliberately break the web app to get you on the app.

amadeuspagel 4y ago

Why not make it a web app, though?

berry_sortoro 4y ago

jeffybefffy519 4y ago

What a joke, if they reject it then there should be concrete reasons given to the developer otherwise this is just nonsense.

sp332 4y ago

It's a bummer obviously, but is there an actual reason not to just use the website?

mongol 4y ago
Apps are more monetizable.
icelancer 4y ago
a huge amount of mobile users don't know what a "website" is and just use apps
- twobitshifter 4y ago
  But they usually use the google app to find info, rather than going to the app store.
dmitriid 4y ago
- available without internet - you can have personalisation in the app without needing to create an account - can have access to location without asking the user every time
- jakear 4y ago
  - use a service worker - use local storage - persist previous location, have quick way to use a map or request location if needed
  - ccouzens 4y ago
    Doesn't local storage expire if you don't use a site for 7 days in Safari? https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocking-and-more/ https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocki... ("7-Day Cap on All Script-Writeable Storage" heading about half way down)
    - 4y ago

kevingadd 4y ago

Mildly frustrating to see the author waste so much time and energy before coming to the correct conclusion: > But I think they just don't like the idea of the app, and no matter what I add to it, they won't accept it. It's awful how gatekeepers usually behave this way instead of coming out and telling you that you should stop and they're never going to approve your product, since that usually is how it works. On the bright side if he was actually using Google Sheets as his data backend, Google was going to shut the sheet down permanently eventually and maybe ban the account, so he dodged a bullet.

xmonkee 4y ago
>On the bright side if he was actually using Google Sheets as his data backend, Google was going to shut the sheet down permanently eventually and maybe ban the account, so he dodged a bullet. I thought google encouraged using their google sheets APIs? I'm clearly wrong. Do you have a source for this?
- kevingadd 4y ago
  I've had them automatically disable two different sheets I was using via the API for "suspicious behavior" without an explanation. There's no way to get them re-enabled.

factorialboy 4y ago

If the mafia doesn't like your store, you can't offer your product.

yazzku 4y ago
Fanboys triggered.

trebbble 4y ago

They've done this since the early days of the app store. Mostly-content apps without really broad appeal have long carried a high risk of rejection. > Homescreen widgets: utterly useless, but can't get more iOS-y and less webapp-y than this, right? This especially, but really the whole post reads like the system working as intended. Granted (as the author notes) way too much shit gets through anyway, but that's not an excuse to do even worse. I do, as a user, wish they'd tighten up the rules a lot and improve enforcement. I'm quite sure it'd improve my experience on the store (and probably on the web—imagine how much better the Reddit site would get, probably overnight, if their app got pulled over not being well-justified).

smoldesu 4y ago
I think Apple has every right to tighten up their first-party App Store, but they should also acknowledge the user's right to install what they want. Maybe some people do want a "too simple" app, and I don't think Apple has the right to tell the user what is-and-isn't appropriate. It's common sense. This would be a great time for them to add a Developer Mode a-la Android, and also start purging their own shopfronts. If Apple genuinely believes they can compete in a free market, they should have no problem restocking their store.
- tptacek 4y ago
  There are other products people can buy if they want to install random apps. At this point, everybody knows what the iPhone ecosystem is about.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    How are users aware of the existence of "too-simple" random apps they're missing out on, if those apps were banned from the App Store?
  - xg15 4y ago
    I don't. Please tell me.

Jonovono 4y ago

Yep, I got this rejection when I made this tipping app (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tip-69/id1460610078 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tip-69/id1460610078). I went on to add OCR detection for receipts so you don't have to type in the amount, I added more tipping modes, I added split bill functionality, and eventually added an entire social network with the ability to share your receipt for the world to see, like or comment on. Must have spent months trying to get approved by Apple. I'd rather no one ask me why.

ece 4y ago
You have IAPs.
mafen 4y ago
Why?
- Jonovono 4y ago
  Once you set your mind to something you gotta see it through.
Aloha 4y ago
Huh, that looks useful for me!
- Jonovono 4y ago
  That's what I tried telling them! "Apple, yes, there is lots of tipping apps. But do any easily tell you what to tip so your bill total ends in something dumb like 69? no!"
alin23 4y ago
Yep, the social network function is also my next go-to for getting this app accepted. Glad to hear it at least worked for someone, gives me hope. I'm thinking of adding an IRC client so that people that go to the same festival can talk about it in the days before the event, but it's all anonymous and ephemeral so I don't get into GDPR and privacy territory.

wswope 4y ago

Apple, by walling their garden, have essentially used their hegemony to steal billions of dollars in potential revenue from developers. Think of how much innovation has been blocked by them intentionally gimping iOS Safari to prevent web apps from competing with native ones. Remember this when reviewing job applications, folks. Apple, Google, and Facebook employees, current and former, are morally derelict and have profited from harming our society - treat them with reciprocity.

kjoedion 4y ago
Apple, by creating the iPhone and a standardized App Store, have essentially created billions of revenue for developers throughout the years. I find your sense of entitlement morally derelict.
- andybak 4y ago
  And I find your preference for hyperbole mildly distasteful.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Apple, by creating the iPhone and taxing every app purchase, have single-handedly lifted billions of dollars out of the pockets of those developers they're supposedly helping. So yes, they're entitled to 'something' because clearly Apple thinks they're entitled to the money of thousands of developers. Maybe they are, but the only way to find out is opening their platform, which they're obviously too afraid to do even as an experiment. They know apps like TikTok, Facebook and Fortnite have the ability to tip the scales away from their favor; so why shouldn't they? Why doesn't the customer have a right to decide?
- mypalmike 4y ago
  You have a reasonable counterpoint. Maybe ditch the personal attack?
- domador 4y ago
  Let's see if I can paraphrase your argument: "The iPhone and the App Store exist, therefore developers should be thankful they exist regardless of how Apple treats them as they try to get their apps approved."

nate 4y ago

Ran into the exact same problem with a very simple camera app I made. Camera app was completely gesture based. So you never had to find a button to quickly flip the camera to the other side of the phone or find the button to start/stop recording. It made using a camera a lot quicker to get multiple shots of a scene and your reaction shot. Also added in stabilization to the front lens, which was easy but wasn't enabled at the time in the native camera app. I got the "too simple" response. Which was the whole point. A camera with zero buttons. I still pointed out the 5 or 7 features it had that technically the iOS camera wasn't doing. I would get a different reason back then. So I'd argue a different point. Then after weeks of this, it came back with the "too simple" reason again. And I was left with the same conclusion. I don't think Apple wants anyone "outsimpling" their camera app. Maybe if I had added a social network to it or filters or something I could have finally gotten it approved. But I lost the desire to keep fighting :) (Just by posting this, now I fear I broke some kind of TOS, and can never publish an iOS app again?)

koheripbal 4y ago
The real reason is that they don't want more apps. There are too many, so any small independent dev has an uphill battle getting their app approved.
- megablast 4y ago
  Exactly. The reviewer isn’t thinking about the big picture. It’s so weird people think this. As if the Ceo is reviewing every app.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  Or they could let the users and developers decide how many apps are too many apps.z
  - MiddleEndian 4y ago
    Letting people install programs without a store!? Ridiculous!
- 4y ago

T3RMINATED 4y ago

akmarinov 4y ago

And that's why we should open up stores by law if necessary. Apple shouldn't be the one to tell me what kind of apps I can have on the device I've bought with my money.

fzfaa 4y ago
You already knew what you were getting into when you bought it, and Apple is far from having a monopoly.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  I feel like this is a counter productive non-solution. The free market, in this case, isn't as free and full of competition as we would like. Smartphone OS's are basically a duopoly, and Android has serious challenges of its own. That being said, a choice has to be made because two different entities have mutually exclusive rights: Do you side with an individuals' right to install whatever they want on a device they purchased? Or, a large company's right to restrict devices however they see fit?
  - eastof 4y ago
    Except that it takes 5 mins even for a non-technical person to install CalyxOS and you get full control over your device and what apps you install using between FDroid and Aurora Store with 100% feature parity with mainline Android.
  - trebbble 4y ago
    There's competition of regulatory regimes—mandatory and strict (could be stricter, IMO) vs. optional and looser. Absent government outlawing a bunch of the bad behavior Apple tries to curb, I like being free to have that choice to opt into their regime. When corporate dragnet spying and other hostile bullshit is outlawed and the laws are effectively enforced, sure, I'd want Apple to tear down the walls on their garden. (please don't just post "but you wouldn't have to use alt stores!" in response—it's been done to death on here, and everywhere else, differences opinion are apparently irreconcilable and we're not likely to gain any ground here today, and Android's still kickin', so the option for that kind of environment does exist for those who want it) Amusingly, advocacy of optional regulatory regimes enforced by corporations is usually a right-Libertarian position. Not that that's necessarily a point in its favor (see again: I'd much prefer this crap simply be illegal) but those folks do love free markets.

fawres 4y ago

NotYourLawyer 4y ago

Seems fine. The original version was just a wrapper around a web page. There’s absolutely no reason for that to be an app. Tarting it up with shit that no one wants or needs doesn’t change the fact that this would be just fine as a web page.

jjcon 4y ago

I assume you have to pay the $99 annual dev fee to submit apps for review? I wonder how much Apple makes on unused dev fees, I'm sure not tons but it does seems like they should offer partial refunds if they refuse to work with devs.

epgui 4y ago

I also don't think this app should have been rejected. However, if we assume that the rejection policy was correct (just for the sake of argument), I don't see how adding things like parallax, push notifications, or even a map, makes the application substantially different in the context of this rejection.

tomcam 4y ago
Did you read TFA? Apple didn't explain why the app was too simple, so OP had to complex it up blindly b/c they offered no guidance.
- epgui 4y ago
  I did read TFA, did you read TFC? haha.

ssalka 4y ago

Is jailbreaking still a thing? Can it make a comeback?

fevangelou 4y ago

Out of curiosity, since iOS seems to have a ~20% share in Romania, why not launch on Android first (which makes business sense at ~80% market share)? And if Apple keeps dicking around, at least make it easy for the mobile site to be installed as a web app to iOS homescreens. @Apple Seriously?

haunter 4y ago
Android users are significantly less likely to pay for an app because by default you can install any apk file on Android. Basically piracy is rampant. On iOS you have to go through the jailbreaking process first to do the same.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > Basically piracy is rampant. This is true in a limited sense. Pretty much any app that relies on Google Play Services has a sort of DRM built-in, you can package it into an APK but it won't let you use the app without buying it. Installing it on a device without Google Play Services won't let it run at all. Kinda scummy, but a decent tradeoff to keep pure AOSP devices without DRM.
- shmde 4y ago
  > Android users are significantly less likely to pay for an app. True. > because by default you can install any apk file on Android. False, its because majority android apps are freemiums with shitload amount of ads, that was Google's way of introducing the app store to the masses and particularly the reason why android even survived. People try to make the general population the villain that they don't like to pay,but Google's whole business model revolved around showing ads on apps also I have rarely found irl people in my college/work life who have actually tried installing apks outside store. In short, I hope you can put the blame on Google for making people addicted to the ad infested model.
- viraptor 4y ago
  > because by default you can install any apk file on Android. Basically piracy is rampant. I think you're overestimating the number of people who both know you're and can be bothered. Even in tech circles I don't personally know anyone doing this. People may not be paying for apps, but the piracy is not rampant either.

EGreg 4y ago

This is actually great news for web developers. Everything he listed on the second try will soon be available on the Web. Why make a native app, indeed? Notifications coming in iOS 16 Share button has long been available (navigator.share) Location - implemented long ago Buy - ApplePay for the Web Add to calendar, subscribe to calendar is possible Sending emails and SMS is possible WebRTC and speaking with people in real time Even the Contact Picker for adding contacts from your address book! You can turn it on right now in "experimental" features. Does anyone know if it's coming in iOS 16?

Barrin92 4y ago

With the Digital Markets act coming into power and the author hailing from Romania the one light at the end of the tunnel is that this soon will be over and at the very least users will be able to sideload your app. At this point I wouldn't waste any more time trying to appease the App Store bureaucracy.

ralusek 4y ago

Please just support PWAs.

CharlesW 4y ago
This isn't an all-or-nothing thing. iOS 15 included several PWA-related improvements, and a 2023 iOS 16 update will bring Web Push to iOS. https://www.simicart.com/blog/pwa-ios-15/ https://www.simicart.com/blog/pwa-ios-15/

kurupt213 4y ago

you have to include a feature that allows apple to further monetize your users

jiggywiggy 4y ago

App store submissions are a pain in the ass. And a mess. The appstore connect website keeps giving timeouts and errors. One client took me 2 hours to create all products manually. Scripts wouldn't run. I submit around 5-10 apps per month. Much more more automized updates, same codebase, sort of same content. The process is pretty standardized. 50 procent is accepted no problem. 50 procent is rejected. They refer to vague guidelines written by lawyers. And when asked for specification often refuse to give an answer. IAP products are reviewed independently so if they are not in sync that causes an app reject without notifying you. All of it sucks. Apple makes it complicated on purpose and they don't care much for new small developers.

strongpigeon 4y ago
Seriously, what's up with App Store Connect crapping out so often. It's just generally so slow too. And the IAP thing you mention... Happened to me except they approved the app without the IAPs?! Users would just see these IAPs as unavailable until I had to resubmit a whole new build.
- jiggywiggy 4y ago
  Yeah that also happened this week. It's one big mess. And they dare giving developers any form of criticism. I submitted a bug issue once over the phone. She was nice. Took me two weeks to submit all kinds of request of screen recordings and browser details. All i got back was after 2 weeks is to update my safari and see if it keeps happening. Once the giant is taken down, there will be few left rooting for them.

strongpigeon 4y ago

This sucks... I'm sorry you had to go through this. The App Store review process is just pretty bad. It's especially frustrating when you see downright shitty apps on the store. The "black-box" aspect of it makes it that much more kafkaesque too. When I first submitted my app on there, they rejected it and complained that I used HealthKit but didn't mention it in the app description. The thing is, I did. My app description had a list of "highlighted features", one them being "Apple health integration". I was about to file an appeal, but then I saw a couple other apps with "Integrates with Apple Health" on its own line in the description. Figured that's probably what they were looking for (even though the guidelines don't explicitly say that) so I changed it and boom, the app was approved. I hate it, but it's not worth my time or the risk to fight it. For what it's worth, I think your app looks really good!

oneplane 4y ago
I wouldn't be too surprised if they simply hire armies of reviewers that simply work through a checklist with limited room for interpretation/personal evaluation. I a way, they could just publish their internal checklist to make this process better for everyone, but I suspect it might cause bad actors to find ways to comply with the rules and still deliver crap to the store; almost like the rules they currently use are security by obscurity (with the side-effect of rejecting apps for seemingly random reasons).
- dinkledunk 4y ago
  I would be, considering how inconsistent the reviewers are.
rish1_2 4y ago
I had 5 - 6 rejection before I got it exactly right with Apple on "Integrates With Apple". It was a total nightmare! Now I finally have my app on the App store. All this to get access to step count. I couldn't just drop the functionality after working on it for so long but it wasn't a critical one at best for the app's functionality. My app's main functionality is rearranging the google calendar and getting those tasks placed correctly without any context switching or time wasting. Here's my ios App store link: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/atomic-life/id1594368125 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/atomic-life/id1594368125.

awinter-py 4y ago

US legislature has been flirting with 3rd party app stores for a while https://www.macobserver.com/news/open-app-markets-act/ https://www.macobserver.com/news/open-app-markets-act/ As an alternative, would be interesting to offer third party review for the existing store. Offer pay-to-expedite, more transparency, preapproval before people start building, clearer guidelines on competition ('too many flashlight apps already').

MiddleEndian 4y ago
Let's ditch the stores entirely.
- zamalek 4y ago
  Or give people the choice to use zero or more stores. I for one really enjoy consistency when it comes to automatic updates (and would actively seek apps on the Windows store for this reason, before switching to Linux, partially for this reason).

cercatrova 4y ago

I want app stores to be opened up, by law if necessary, but I also agree with Apple here that this app is too similar to a webpage to really be necessary. Users can simply visit a website that has all this data already, and so I believe Apple was correct in their rejection. However, you should have an alternate way of installing such an app, through sideloading or simply being able to be distributed on another app store, analogous to Android's F-Droid.

normalhappy 4y ago

Apple is likely denying you because they are stealing your idea for iOS 16 and don't want the competition.

Pulcinella 4y ago

The weird thing is I wouldn’t even consider this to be “too simple.” There are far, far more simple apps on the App Store. This is basically just a conference app, which arent usually much more complex than this and are basically just a (usually very ugly) wrapper for a website. At least this is trying to fit in with the visual style of the platform.

samsepi0l 4y ago

Write the same app but in React Native. All the extra boilerplate it includes will pad the code out a lot, and they'll probably assuming that it must be a legit use case for someone to go to that effort. But resubmit under a different app name. I bet it goes through.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 4y ago

I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple stalls the developer to copy the idea and add an events app or integrate it into maps. They’ve done similar things in the past.

lawgimenez 4y ago

Our app has been using the same purpose string on why we needed the camera. We have submitted over 50 updates for two years. Then all of a sudden our app was rejected with “Revise the purpose string in your app’s Info.plist file for the camera to explain why your app needs access and include an example of how the user's data will be used.” I argued back and forth with whoever was reviewing for Apple at that moment. After 3 hours our app was approved. Smh.

savrajsingh 4y ago

The frustrating part here is you're a straight up dev humbly working on features and have an app you want in the store. Meanwhile, a quick search of the store yields tons of spammy apps that are definitely just wrapping a web-site or, worse, designed to scam people out of their money via in-app purchases.

neither_color 4y ago

My first app was rejected for the same reason. I think if the first reviewer is having a bad day you're out of luck, and then the next reviewer is going to see the history and feel empowered to do the same

c-fe 4y ago

Its weird. This app looks significantly more complex than the simple note taking app I developed [1] and I managed to publish mine without any concern. [1] https://cfx.lu/remindme https://cfx.lu/remindme

googlryas 4y ago
You may want to delete this comment, or at least the link to your site, because you may just notify apple reviewers that your app should be rejected.

LastTrain 4y ago

Maybe they see through your attempts to simply use more IOS features as just that, and that you aren't really addressing the core issue which is - why do you need to publish an app to essentially view a google docs spreadsheet?

mastazi 4y ago

Some apps are "too simple" but at the same time, something along these lines is OK by Apple's standards: "Thanks for purchasing the Acme Kettle! In order to boil your water, you need to download an app! But don't worry, it's easy! You just need to create an account, enter your personal data, accept our legally binding terms and conditions and verify your phone number and your email, "for your safety"! Oh and we will push mandatory OTA updates to your kettle's firmware! We may remove functionality to your Kettle from time to time, to protect you and your loved ones! Release Notes v 0.0.112 - we are sunsetting the "boiling" functionality. the ability to boil water has been removed. Acme Corporation recommends using the kettle as a jug, it's ideal for cold drinks!"

dane-pgp 4y ago
Or re-enabling the "boiling" functionality requires upgrading to their subscription plan, to help pay for their online service which checks that you are using official Acme branded water.
gcheong 4y ago
This is exactly why I didn't get the Joule sous vide immersion circulator despite it being recommended by some big name sites when it first came out. Why would I get something for cooking that can't be used without an app on a phone?

alanchen 4y ago

F* App Store, let's make side-loading a legal requirement.

LastTrain 4y ago

Maybe they see your attempts to find a loophole by using more native IOS functionality as just that, and they still think your app is just a fancy way to, essentially, look at a google spreadsheet.

Rackedup 4y ago

The phone app on the iphone is too simple... it doesn't even block spam

TruthWillHurt 4y ago

[flagged]

clord 4y ago

While I agree that web apps would be a better platform for the majority of this information… simplicity is not the way to express it. I’d love to see some memes of classic mac apps and this email stuck to it.

chocolol 4y ago

I had this happen. What they want to see is things that really use the phones features or something that makes it mobile This frustrated me at first but then i did some thinking and came up with some ideas. I got mine over the line by having a favorites list that uses core data and the ability to sent notification reminders. Both are using core aspects of iPhone so more likely to be considered unique enough for App Store.

lizardactivist 4y ago

My friend, it's possible you are about to get Apple'd. That is to say, Apple may steal your idea and publish an app just like this, because it really is a great idea.

elwell 4y ago

Chrome Web Store has the opposite view: your extension can get rejected if it has more than one purpose. Our extension got taken down that replaced all in-page ads with ads from our network while paying the user in a certain Ethereum token for every ad impression they see. The ostensible rejection reason being that it both replaced ads & served as a crypto wallet.

kube-system 4y ago

This sucks as a developer and I sympathize. But, I absolutely hate when I have to download an app for something that could have been a website.

Biganon 4y ago
A few years ago I had made a website that worked perfectly as a website. Many people asked "why isn't it an app??" Guess you can't make everyone happy
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Only developers will ask for it to be a website. Normal people are perfectly fine with an app.

LeoPanthera 4y ago

Maybe this is a controversial opinion but I think I agree with Apple here. The Google and Microsoft stores are absolutely full of completely useless featureless apps, many of which exist only to trick you into thinking that it is something else. My general mental rule is "could this app be a website"? And in this case it absolutely could be.

Gigachad 4y ago
Especially now that you can add a website as an icon to the home screen and it largely feels like a real app.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  That feature is much too hidden to consider it a viable option for the mainsteam.
mjamesaustin 4y ago
Ah, so Reddit for example should not be allowed an app?
- LeoPanthera 4y ago
  I mean, that's a bad example, the Reddit app is absolute garbage.
Loeffelmann 4y ago
I guess airbnb shouldn't have an app
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Or Uber, Lyft, Spotify, Netflix, food delivery sites, basically any website (according to the GP)
  - ricardobeat 4y ago

dvdsgl 4y ago

We created https://www.glideapps.com/ https://www.glideapps.com/ for the niche apps that people want, but Apple doesn't! Also powered by Google Sheets, as OP's app is.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

"too simple" is such a bullshit response; Apple should stick to privacy/security/legal concerns when reviewing apps

rickspencer3 4y ago

What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a developer account, not to mention that I can't side load something someone else made. I get that iPhones are nifty and all, but I don't see how people can spend that money on a device that locks the owner out of basic functionally. Android is not perfect, but at least I am able to, you know, use my phone as I see fit.

ausbah 4y ago
my guess is simple because 99% of people have their needs met by the app store and / or have no interest in side loading because it's too technical for too little benefit
- j-bos 4y ago
  This applies to android as well
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- salawat 4y ago
  ...The too technical part being self-inflicted by the requirement for yearly hundred bux and a working mastery of cryptography utils.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  It's 30 seconds to sideload an app on Android. Many good apps are available by sideload only. They seem to do well enough.
HWR_14 4y ago
Except what you just said isn't true. Yes, Apple charges for developer accounts that lets you publish to the AppStore or even privately. But you can get a free version that lets you push to devices locally. So if you want to distribute your app not in the store you can do so as long as you release the source so other people can build it on their free account.

whoopsie 4y ago

Funny as hell… Apple keeps featuring out fintech app, which is image lock up for image lockup the exact same as our website.

whoopsie 4y ago

Apple has repeatedly featured my fintech’s app. Almost every corner is designed to be nearly the same as our website… to boot the web has a few more functionalities.

derac 4y ago

IMO morally we should not support closed platforms. Technical people and especially developers are more responsible than others. I find the apologia around this disturbing.

ja27 4y ago

Been there. I have an iOS app that’s been a solid top 100 in it’s category and has been featured multiple times on the App Store. I decided to port it to macOS mostly as an experiment but a few reviews had asked for it. It was a big pain (pre-Catalyst or anything else). But I got it working well enough and thought it looked decent. I submitted it only to get it kicked back with the “too simple” rejection. Yeah, it’s simple, but people love it and use it. I didn’t even bother appealing.

paulryanrogers 4y ago

Could it be there is a tacit policy of always reject first, like government benefits, as a first pass filter?

stavrus 4y ago

Is this a new requirement? I remember for Kubecon Seattle 2018 using an iOS app (named KubeCon+CNC) that was nothing more than a schedule viewer for the event. It didn't even use native views and given how narrow the audience for the app was -- attendees for one of two 3-day conferences -- I was surprised at the time that it even existed as an app and had made it past the app store review. I also know of at least one app, a sanitary self-certification app that allows your entry into a European country by generating a QR code to display, that is also basically a shell around a simple web app with a form. It absolutely should be an app given how convenient it makes accessing the entry requirements and generated QR code, but its existence does make these app store requirements seem absolutely arbitrary.

julienmarie 4y ago

Weirdly a few years ago (7?) I made the most stupid app for a friend. The app was really bad and coded with my feet as I never did a mobile app. It was based on Ionic and just had one screen. It was a feeding calculator for horses for a brand of horse feeds. You input the weight of the animal, the age and it's level of activity and it calculated how much feed to give daily and what type of feed. The app was clunky, outright bad. It got approved on the first try. I was surprised.

guessbest 4y ago
My experience is that if they don't understand the market, they tend to approve. But if they understand the market, the reviewer might make the determination that market is overcrowded, so the appeal they are looking for is "differentiation". Yes, I don't work for Apple.
- guessbest 4y ago
  Thinking more on this, I'm guessing a lot of rejections come from having an application that depends entirely on receiving network data.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

> > > Hello, > > Thank you for your response. We encourage you to consider ways to make your app stand out. > We understand that it can be difficult to determine what the best experience is to offer your users. > While there isn’t one set answer that works for every app, the following iOS development videos offer great >information for helping understand how your app can provide a great user experience: – Essential Design Principles – >Design Tips for Great Games > You may also want to review the Human Interface Guidelines available on Apple Developer. > Best regards, > App Store Review That is some passive aggressive, nose all the way in the air, *bullshit*. Be better than this Apple.

goerz 4y ago

Even as a consumer, Apple’s arbitrary enforcement of made-up rules is infuriating. One of my most-used apps is a radio streaming app “MusiCharts”. It hasn’t been updated in years because (according to the developer) Apple refuses to let him update the app since they think it’s too trivial. Yet, it is the only radio streaming app I’ve found that can scobble to Last.fm, and it provides huge value to me. Hopefully, it will survive a few more iOS updates.

fishfood23 4y ago

Nothing is as useless as Faceketeer, and that got approved.

zascrash 4y ago

As someone learning iOS development this is really off-putting. Hopefully things works out to op.

Waterluvian 4y ago

Anyone remember when apps were new and there was that gem app that did nothing other than proving you can spend $1000 on an app? I’m guessing this is related to that kind of thing.

tiku 4y ago

Why doesn't Apple make a section for lower tier apps? Or just a notice, that it doesn't meet the "high" standards but you can download it and it is safe.

kevincox 4y ago
Maybe it isn't worth the cost of reviewing them and dealing with refunds and support?

major505 4y ago

Apple manual review can be a pain in the ass. Thats why usually I launch most of my apps first in android. If there's a demand, then I do the IOs version.

jrockway 4y ago

I had a moment of disillusion when I first bought an iPhone. I came from Android, and when you open up the Marketplace, 99.9999% of the apps are useless piles of shit. I got an iPhone, and was so excited to open up the App Store. I did, and I found that 99.999% of the apps were useless piles of shit, many of which didn't even run on my devices. I have no idea what Apple is trying to achieve with the App Store. If every app were a Top 10, that would be amazing, and that's what you'd think you get from all the human curation. (How can every app in an app store be the best? Reality distortion field, trust me.) Instead, you just spend a million hours getting your crap app through human reviews until the human is like "you know what? FUCK IT" and they just let it in. The result is an App Store that's probably going to have laws made against it, for absolutely no gain for the end user. I don't get it.

davidkuennen 4y ago
As an app developer this is my experience as well. It's way easier to get good ratings on the App Store than on the Play Store. I was confused why, until I noticed that it's just that the standards for apps of iOS users are way lower. There is so much trash around. Especially trash that wants to scam you for money and gets thrown into your face at the top of the list. They crave for anything that isn't a complete pile of shit. On Android it's different. There is lots of good apps and thus users are way more critical even if the app is the exact same one as on the App Store.

throwaway892238 4y ago

We need a law to open up these devices. Just because it's a Duopoloy instead of a Monopoly doesn't mean we should be forced into using a device only the way these companies dictate. The whole idea of the App Store is, to me, actually worse than no App Store at all. If you want to find popular software, normally you google for it, and go with the recommendations from a trustworthy publication. Yes there is malware on the internet, but there is also malware in the App Store! Let the market try to solve these problems since Apple and Google can't.

cma 4y ago
The App store taxes minus their expenses is more than federal taxes, and even taxes you if you make a net loss unlike the government.
bergenty 4y ago
There really isn’t all that much malware on the App Store. I like the way things are to be honest, apple does its best to protect my device, ecosystem and privacy and it works for me without having to expend brain cycles. If I wanted an open phone I would just jailbreak the iPhone or get an android.
- TGRush 4y ago
  Except Apple is also heavily going against Jailbreaking, with multiple lawsuits in the past, and system updates made specifically to patch them out, and nothing else. Sure, you can stay on older iOS Versions, but you would be loosing actual improvements

vivegi 4y ago

The app store is an abomination. Don't even get me started on the app store ensures security and privacy of users. If that is the case, they would not be having apps that use in-app browsers that are a security and privacy sinkhole. (TikTok and Instagram to name two of the top apps using in-app browsers) It is just a rent-seeking racket and enough people are drinking the koolaid keeping this flywheel moving. All 'app store' platforms by bigtech players AAPL, MSFT and GOOG are guilty of arbitrary high-handedness and developer apathy.

personjerry 4y ago

I made a button that just plays the WRONG sound clip from Trump. Rejected for being too simple. Meanwhile the same app already on the App Store features a dozen ads, popping up as soon as you open the app, before you click the button, after you click the button, and all around the button. I guess those are the features they're looking for.

Curzel 4y ago

> Buy tickets button (which should always point you to the correct website to get tickets from) There you go, being tickets "digital", Apple wants a 30% cut, and they are basically forcing you to implement in-app payments. It sucks man! Try change the wording from "Buy Tickets" to "Get more information" or "Visit Website" to get around the review process, and work from there

butz 4y ago

Please, build MORE simple apps. I would pay for a suite of simple Android applications that respect privacy, take least amount of "disk" space and RAM, load and work as fast as platform allows it. Replacements for bloated system apps, like calendar, messages, email etc., also some other apps like qr reader, notes and similar.

chakkepolja 4y ago
There's some of these on F-droid.

gauddasa 4y ago

In this case, Apple is blatantly honest and they can not be clearer than that. Web standards (like JS, CSS and HTML5) for made with tremendous effort to serve entire humanity. I too recommend to provide web based service whenever possible and publish an app only if you rely on some cutting edge technology that is not a part of web standard yet. Think about it.

faebi 4y ago

I still think that this is a side effect of having a broken discoverability in the app store. It's very hard to find new apps, it's even harder to actually try them, and it's extremely hard to find something good. I literally need 100's of touches to install and uninstall 10 apps.

intrasight 4y ago

First to OP: Why are you denying users the use of your service by beating this dead horse? Does that really in any way serve your users? The current state of affairs with iOS is the context is which we must make decisions. So many of the posts here strike me as useless complaining about the reality on the ground which cannot be changed. You want to hack? Simple - get an Android or PinePhone. You want to share your hacks with friends? Simple - make a PWA. You want to make an app for the general public and don't want to deal with app store bureaucracy? Simple - make a PWA. Your app requires native features? Then learn to navigate the app store approval process. I have several friends and colleagues who have launched public apps. Some went the PWA route. Some went the app store route. All have achieved their mission. It's informative to hear their answers as to their choice. Those that choose the PWA route mostly did so because they already had a web service, and just wanted a good mobile version. Those that went the app store route said in effect that it's not really an app (in the minds of their user audience) if it's not in the app store, and were not already providing some service via the web. Granted this is a small sampling of half a dozen. I would love to have a wider sample to review as I am interested in transitioning from desktop web to mobile app development, and want to invest myself in a good foundation. Does anyone know of a good (and recent) article where developers of successful apps are interviewed and ask to explain their platform decisions? A final comment is this. I think Apple is working to make PWAs a viable choice partially to reduce their approval burden and incentivize developers of "simple" apps - like that of the OP - to go the PWA route.

Apocryphon 4y ago
This completely unsympathetic and unempathetic comment elides the root problem: it isn’t that Apple exercises strict oversight over its App Store, it’s that 1) that oversight is applied inconsistently, and 2) they do not provide transparency into the specifics of their oversight. This whole situation could have been avoided if the reviewers had been specific about what they took issue with, instead of wasting valuable developer time. That you are blaming a fellow developer is most unbecoming.
- intrasight 4y ago
  I may be unsympathetic but I am most certainly not blaming the developer.

solarkraft 4y ago

As somebody opposed to their monopoly on software on iPhones, I'm happy they keep giving easy to point out examples for why.