> 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.<p>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!<p>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".<p>Did Marco forgot about this, or did he decide to try and slip it through anyway?<p>[1]<a href="http://www.marco.org/2011/02/22/subscription-rule-not-for-saas-access" rel="nofollow">http://www.marco.org/2011/02/22/subscription-rule-not-for-sa...</a>
I'm currently appealing a similar rejection of an auto-renewing subscription app. Here's the rejection:<p><i>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.</i><p><i>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.</i><p>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.
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."<p>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.
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.
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...
My app got rejected by the same reason, apple said I have to use usual subscriptions, not auto-renewable.<p>Evernote, Dropbox, they seems to be forced to use non auto-renewable-subscriptions.<p>But, Greplin is using auto-renewable-subscriptions on their iPhone app. I don't know why they can use it when other SaaS apps are rejected.