> I was told via phone about an apparently unwritten rule that I was violating: auto-renewing subscriptions can only be used for apps that deliver “new content” during each renewal period, like magazines. Charging a monthly price for an ongoing service is not allowed.
That's nice. I worked on a auto-renewing service app, and I received a rejection phone call from Apple too. They didn't tell me anything useful, they just said that "your kind of app isn't appropriate for this type of in-app purchase". When I pressed for details and talked about alternative options, the person at Apple admitted to me that she'd never actually used our app!
I can't get over how terrible Apple are at communicating with developers. It's bad enough that there are these unwritten rules, but having to deal with Chinese whispers internal to Apple as well is ridiculous.
Am I confused? Didn't Marco blog about this last year[1] and then Steve Jobs replied to someone's email saying, quote, "We created subscriptions for publishing apps, not SaaS apps.
Sent from my iPhone".
Did Marco forgot about this, or did he decide to try and slip it through anyway?
Alas, unfortunately it's not that cut and dry. We're SaaS, and were able to get through 4 or 5 releases of our app without Apple seeming to care about our model. Eventually we got a rejection stating that our application would be pulled if we didn't remove a reference to our website from the app (we can collect payment information on our website if you log in with an account you've created on the phone). The app reviewer stated that we should look into implementing IAP subscriptions.
Since we didn't want to confuse our customers by giving them no information on how to subscribe, and the app store is a valuable marketing channel, we decided to implement auto-renewable IAP subscriptions per Apple's recommendation and documentation but got rejected for having the wrong purchasability type. We then had to go implement non-renewable subscriptions (which are more complicated and provide a worse user experience, in my opinion) and got approved for sale.
One of our developers filed a bug report with Apple about the documentation regarding purchasability types and received a response that they would improve it. I guess I'm fine with sharing revenue with Apple if they make it really easy for users to subscribe (which IAP certainly does), but it'd be nice to understand the Right Way from the beginning.
I'm currently appealing a similar rejection of an auto-renewing subscription app. Here's the rejection:
We found that the Purchasability Type for one or more of your In-App Purchase products was inappropriately set, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.
Your In-App Purchase is currently an Auto-Renewable Subscription. However, it would be more appropriate to use the Non-Renewing Subscription In-App Purchase type. Auto-Renewable Subscriptions are intended for periodical apps, such as magazines and newspapers. Non-Renewing Subscriptions should be used for products that are not appropriate for Auto-Renewable Subscriptions.
Nothing in Apple's documentation hints that Auto-Renewable Subscriptions are more appropriate for one class of app than for another, so I was hoping that my reviewer was acting on some subjective, high-level guideline that I could argue on. However, it's beginning to look as if there is a specific, unwritten policy against non-periodical apps.
Apple would do a big favor to developers by being a bit more open and transparent with the regulations.In your case this will probably be the relevant guideline that they may cite.
> 11.9 Apps containing "rental" content or services that expire after a limited time will be rejected
It seems that Apple's review team has interpreted SaaS to fall under this guideline.
What stops SaaS providers from co-publishing a newsletter or publication so they fall within the guidelines of this rule, and therefore become "Publishers sending out periodical apps."
Up to Apple to make the judgement call, but the line gets grey with something like TheStreet.com, which has a lot of services, and also a newsletter.
That's a good idea, and there is precedent for it working. Pastebot wouldn't ordinarily be allowed to run in the background, as it isn't one of the predefined types of background app. They decided to configure their app as a media player and play a silent audio file when they wanted to run in the background. Apple wouldn't allow this, but as long as they play audible music - so they are actually a media player - it is permissible.
You'd have to go to the trouble of building the functionality and submitting it to Apple to find out though, and you'd be running the risk of Apple changing their mind at any time.
I too have been bitten by this. What makes it truly annoying is that it isn't documented anywhere publicly, so beware! You are not allowed to build a business on auto-renewable subscriptions, unless you are a large publisher.
Apple was nice enough to call me on the telephone to discuss my rejection. They wouldn't say why auto-renewable subscriptions can't be used by non-publishers.
My suspicion is that they want to prevent app authors from using a SaaS-like monthly billing model. Whether this is due to customer confusion or their own distaste for monthly billing I can't figure.
It seems that developers have to take the backseat unless they want to miss out on the ride.
A lot of Apple's thinking can be explained through the eyes of the user. As a user I'd hate for apps to continually bill me unless I expect it (which I would in case of a publication). As a Developer, I can see where SaaS billing would make sense and would like to have that option.
Monthly auto-renewing subscriptions? If yes, would you mind saying which ones? I'm curious if there are certain classes of non-publishing apps which are being allowed to use auto-renewing IAP subscriptions.
Wait, maybe I'm late to the party - purchased Instapaper over a year ago for $4.99 on my iPad - does Marco want to charge me a renewing fee now for my use of his server time? I suppose that's fair, but it is a change of policy and I'm wondering why he can't let early adopters get a free ride (I paid money after all) because we supported him in the beginning before he was popular...
The $1/month subscription also enables use of the feature that lets you do full-text search on the articles you saved. It's also needed if you want to use applications that access the Instapaper API like the Paper Mache app on webOS.
That's nice. I worked on a auto-renewing service app, and I received a rejection phone call from Apple too. They didn't tell me anything useful, they just said that "your kind of app isn't appropriate for this type of in-app purchase". When I pressed for details and talked about alternative options, the person at Apple admitted to me that she'd never actually used our app!
I can't get over how terrible Apple are at communicating with developers. It's bad enough that there are these unwritten rules, but having to deal with Chinese whispers internal to Apple as well is ridiculous.