We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

Given the app consists of two web views and a bit of background code I'm not surprised. Perhaps if they'd utilised the GUI elements Apple provides to give a native experience it would actually warrant being an app.

tbh this seems like it would be better implemented as a HTML5 mobile site that utilises the new local storage APIs. You can still promote web apps through App Store, and it seems like a more obvious route to me.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#6

Post by sjwright » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:29 AM UTC

bjm1904 wrote: post #5

Given the app consists of two web views and a bit of background code I'm not surprised. Perhaps if they'd utilised the GUI elements Apple provides to give a native experience it would actually warrant being an app. tbh this seems like it would be better implemented as a HTML5 mobile site that utilises the new local storage APIs. You can still promote web apps through App Store, and it seems like a more obvious route…

> You can still promote web apps through App Store

Really? I haven't heard about this.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#7

Post by allworknoplay » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:29 AM UTC

It's a common enough rejection; I've gotten it before and know other people who have too. You can respond to them and clarify why this set of functionality is right, that it's a new app and will have features added in the future, etc. Worked for me, anyway.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#8

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:32 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #6

bjm1904 wrote: post #5

Given the app consists of two web views and a bit of background code I'm not surprised. Perhaps if they'd utilised the GUI elements Apple provides to give a native experience it would actually warrant being an app. tbh this seems like it would be better implemented as a HTML5 mobile site that utilises the new local storage APIs. You can still promote web apps through App Store, and it seems like a more obvious route…

> You can still promote web apps through App Store Really? I haven't heard about this.

[deleted]

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#9

Post by bjm1904 » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:37 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #6

bjm1904 wrote: post #5

Given the app consists of two web views and a bit of background code I'm not surprised. Perhaps if they'd utilised the GUI elements Apple provides to give a native experience it would actually warrant being an app. tbh this seems like it would be better implemented as a HTML5 mobile site that utilises the new local storage APIs. You can still promote web apps through App Store, and it seems like a more obvious route…

> You can still promote web apps through App Store Really? I haven't heard about this.

Sorry, my bad. It seems I was thinking of PhoneGap, which packages HTML5 apps for mobile devices https://build.phonegap.com/

I believe on some Android platform (such as Amazon App Store) you can even charge for HTML5 apps, so it's not unprecedented.

However Apple app submissions requirements state you have to have sufficient functionality to warrant providing a native application. Not surprised that this code didn't make the grade, but as mentioned if they were able to make use of UI framework or put through PhoneGap could resolve the issue.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#10

Post by bentrengrove » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:46 AM UTC

I've been there, had an app I used daily in my job. I valued it for how fast it got me the information I needed (aviation weather) without features that I didn't need getting in the way. A few friends thought it looked useful so I put it on the store and got the same rejection. I added a couple of features that nobody uses (saving weather for later viewing) and got it through. I always suspected it was that I wanted to charge Tier 3 for it and they didn't think that was justified.