App Store Review Guidelines Clarification

7
votes

For these 2 rules:

11.1 Apps that unlock or enable additional features or functionality with mechanisms other than the App Store will be rejected

11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected.

Is the applicability of these rules reduced/removed if the enablement/disablement of the features/functionality (11.1) or the content purchase (11.2) does not actually occur within the app on the device.

For example, you write an app that requires free registration but if you visit a website outside of the app (and not linked to from the app) to "upgrade" your registration (by paying money) the app gains some more functionality or content next time you use it.

Thoughts?

2
iosapp-storeappstore-approval
It's a clear violation of 11.2 – CodaFi
That guideline literally translates to iApp or no app. You may think that by linking indirectly to an external website that you can outsmart the review team, but they catch this stuff more often than not. – CodaFi
You don't want to know the answer to that question... – CodaFi
There's another point here that I believe is being missed. This question is completely off topic here. StackOverflow is for programming related questions, and seeing as though we're all programmers and not lawyers we can't really give you good advice on what Apple means with the exact wording of their guidelines. Side note, it doesn't really matter wether anyone disagrees with their ruling on an app. You could bring a whole legal team in on a rejection appeal and you won't be able to get around the fact that Apple reserves the right to reject or approve what ever they want. – Mick MacCallum
@NSPostWhenIdle If there was a better StackOverflow site to move this to, I might be in favor of it also. But ultimately the question might get the best answer from other programmers that have faced the issue directly, and are able to give programming advice to change the app behavior to avoid it becoming an issue. As you pointed out, it's not really even a question for lawyers, as Apple can enforce it however they wish. This makes feedback from other programmers that have dealt with the issue even more invaluable. – Mason G. Zhwiti

2 Answers

8
votes

My thoughts: you'd be violating the guidelines, but your app could get approved, of course. The payment does indeed not occur inside the app, but the application "utilizes" such a system (which is very broad) thus is in violation.

This reminds me of the Newsstand/subscriptions discussions going on before. Basically, if you offer something outside an app, you have to make the same (or better) offer inside the app (via IAP subscriptions). Perhaps this is applicable in your case, too. Although, according to 11.3, you may not offer services outside your app if purchased via IAP (so you may not unlock features on e.g. a website too.)

You'd also try and offer a free app. Once users (somewhere, somehow) upgrade their account, they can access the members only app, a new, separate app. But approval is still questionable, which brings me to my last part:

"We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, "I'll know it when I see it". And we think that you will also know it when you cross it." — https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

In short: submit, pray and find out.

1
votes

What you describe sounds similar to the situation that resulted in apps that used Dropbox being rejected (Link). Apple determined that since the apps that used Dropbox functionality required the user to visit the Dropbox site to sign up those apps were in violation of those rules and were thus rejected.