My app has been repeatedly rejected because I do not offer free in-app trials (but offer money-back guarantee on my website) and also do not offer in-apps purchases.<p>I asked if I offered in-app purchases, would the app be approved?<p>No, since I offer 3-day money-back guarantee on website-based purchses, I must ALSO offer a free trial in the app.<p>But I don’t want to offer free trials. I’m ok offering a 3-day money-back guarantee, but Apple says that’s not an option for apps.<p>They insist that I (1) change my business model from 3-day money back guarantee to free trial and (2) purchase a shit ton more infrastructure to handle the audience that free trials attract (I’ve tried free trial business model and it created a lot of use but no more revenue than 3-day money back guarantee). The money-back guarantee seems to weed out a lot of free loaders, at least in this domain — not necessarily others.
It seems like a simple law could fix this:<p>Phone device makers that provide an application store must also allow the user to load non-approved applications with equivalent API access to approved applications, and must make it possible for the user to load a third-party application store with equivalent access to the first-party application store.
It's a very nice example of Stockholm syndrome:
"They are the nice big brother inflicting pain to devs and users and restricting their rights, and it's probably my fault if they are not nice with me"
> But getting it on the store has been one of the most difficult, non-technical obstacles I've had to overcome, and this was only one of <i>many</i> other hoops I've had to go through.<p>We were very careful in our app to not push the boundaries at all. Nothing even remotely outside the norm for this very reason.<p>Now... contrast this “code chilling effect” with how great innovations have happened. Apple is clearly preventing any App company from ever having the same opportunity that Apple themselves had.<p>Bad moves I think.
I assume the policy is based on the fact someone at Apple has decided that keyboards on the Apple Watch can never be designed to have a satisfactory user experience, therefore all watch keyboards are banned.<p>However OP's app is grandfathered in, but when he tries to make other similar apps, they aren't allowed.
> Pushing for an answer on how one of my apps can have a watch keyboard, but the other cannot, they could only "discuss via phone".<p>What would Apple's response be if you started with "This call may be recorded"? Is recording without notice legal in any state?
I am not sure that this app is <i>for</i> blind and visually impaired users, or for everybody but also useful enough that blind and visually impaired can use it (which would be pretty darned useful, for a keyboard)<p>If it were explicitly an assistance app, would Apple be in violation of any discrimination laws by refusing to have it in the app store in that way?
The moral is, don't relies on Platform vendor's official distribution system as a sole way to distribute your software. If that platform doesn't allow you to distribute the software outside of it, don't bother to support such a platform. You have been lost already. Don't waste your time on dealing with such hideous non-free platform.
These kind of tweets kinda defeats the true purpose of Twitter, why don't the people write a blog instead of making dozens of tweets? I mean, you can write a blog with exact o more words, you can express yourself more and make the article much richer, and then you can link it to your twitter account, it makes absolutely no sense to do what he did.