Their guidelines page (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/) has some pretty curt language.
Interesting how terse and forward they are here as compared to other Apple docs. Reads as if a jaded reviewer wrote it :)
Interesting how terse and forward they are here as compared to other Apple docs. Reads as if a jaded reviewer wrote it :)
So if I have a cross platform messaging app, I can't say, "syncs with android and Windows phone devices". Really?
>Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind
Ahem Lyft.
Edit: Alright, I'm taking a slaughtering on karma. Point taken. You can implement your own widgets on iOS.
Please accept my apologies to all for my original comment that I thought Google wasn't in compliance and for my misguided interpretation.
To all whom I have offended, I apologize.
[0] and their accessibility support, and "skin" changes with the system's evolution
There are like 300.000 apps on the App Store with their custom UI contrary to iOS look -- including truly hideous items.
What if that is the whole point of the app? ie we run a deals engine, users who install would be installing exclusively for such content!
Really[1].
1: http://www.cultofmac.com/320141/apple-rejecting-ios-pebble-a...
You can't say it in the application or its metadata (e.g. appstore listing), no.
> Ahem Lyft.
Report them?
Why? It's a clear win for everyone but Apple to mention cross-platform capabilities when you have them. The iOS store is full of apps that refuse to acknowledge the existence of any non-apple products you might use or want to sync/integrate with.
If anything, you should push back against Apple directly. Good luck....
Edit: disregard, I cannot read.
From the website:
> If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical App.
Is this an indication that things like CodePush[0] may be rejected in the future?
As per the DPA's rule 3.3.2 code downloaded and executed via the built-in webview is exempt from this limitation:
> 3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple's built-in WebKit framework or JavascriptCore, provided that such scripts and code do not change the primary purpose of the Application by providing features or functionality that are inconsistent with the intended and advertised purpose of the Application as submitted to the App Store.
(emphasis mine) which is why e.g. you can build a browser around the system webview or build code-push, but you can't publish your own browser with its rendering and JS engines.
[0] https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/information/iOS_Pro...
[0] IIRC it was originally an internal document, which got leaked way back
They're not rules they're guidelines. That's in the name. Which is why they don't mention the webview exemption to guideline 2.7 for instance.
> The Developer Program License Agreement referenced in 27.1 is something else.
No, the agreement the actual thing developers sign on and must follow.
The App Store submission guidelines, by contrast, aren't a legal document. They're essentially just documentation, and as such can be written however Apple sees fit.
Here's a good example: https://about.500px.com/terms/
I'm guessing the lawyers would reject that for fear of what'd happen in case of conflicts between the "lawyer" version and reasonable interpretations of the "human-readable" version.