App Rejected for "resembles Pokemon" [closed] - ios

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
This is the message from apple:
"Your app or its metadata appears to contain misleading content.
Specifically, your app includes content that resembles Pokémon.
Please see attached screenshots for details.
You will experience a delayed review process if you deliberately
disregard the App Store Review Guidelines, ignore previous rejection
feedback in future app submissions, or use your app to mislead or
deceive users."
My app is a Pokdex and is supposed to contain images of Pokemon.
How come there are other Pokedex apps in the app store with Pokemon images?
What should I do for this to get approved and how do I get approval from the copyright owners?

Stack Overflow isn't the best place to discuss App Store rejections of this nature, but I'm probably in a good position to give some insight on this. :)
I shipped a Pokédex app on the App Store named iPokédex back in 2011, using official art assets and pictures from Bulbapedia. Within a month, I received an email from Apple stating that the Pokémon Company International had filed a copyright claim against my app and asked me to sort it out with them.
I emailed Pokémon's General Counsel, and they replied with a very detailed email saying that the Pokémon Company does not allow unlicensed third party Pokémon apps on the App Store and asked me to take it down. I (borderline tearfully) took it down at the end of that week.
This year, I was lucky enough to get a chance to visit Pokémon HQ up in Seattle and met that counsel directly. I put the question to them again directly asking if there was ANY way a third party indie could get licensing permission for a Pokémon app, and they flat out said no. They operate on a corporate scale much larger than that in which an indie can participate.
In the past, Apple has been very lax when it comes to copyright infringing apps. They'd allow anything on the App Store, and only when the original party filed a suit, they'd start acting on it.
That seems to have changed in recent times, probably now that Pokémon GO, an officially licensed app, is on the App Store and the popularity of Pokémon on the store has skyrocketed as a result.
I talked to one of the App Store review team members at WWDC this year, and they said they're starting to be a bit more proactive about copyright. If you're making an app about a popular intellectual property, they might require you to supply documentation stating that you have official permission to use that property. Pokémon GO probably ensured that Apple scrutinizes most Pokémon app submissions in that way now.
Any existing Pokémon apps on the App Store might have avoided that scrutiny initially, but they'll be at risk of it happening to them every time they do an app update now.
There's no easy way to say this, but it's highly unlikely you'll get official approval from Pokémon, and without it, Apple won't let you publish your Pokédex app. The counsel assured me that any and all existing Pokédex apps in the App Store will eventually get the same copyright claim that I did in 2011.
I'm sorry. If it's any consolation, you're not the first Pokémon fan to which this has happened.

Related

IOS ATT Apptrackingtransparency guidelines

I reaching out in hopes somebody can help clarify the IOS ATT guidelines.
I have been reading and re-reading it over and over again and I can't seem to get a solid yes or no in regards to if my app need to apply this or not.
So a bit of background, I pushed out an update to our app a few weeks back, answered all the new privacy questions and a few days later I got an email saying that my app 'tracks' users and need to add the ATT.
This is not a huge deal but reading over the guidelines I'm not sure if it apply, simply because
We don't use a 3rd part API for our analytics (we have an in-house solution)
We don't sell the data
The data is not linked to any 3rd part vendors
We don't use any advertising ID etc ( we allow them to put banner ads in app but again, these are all tied to our own in-house analytics and are not monetized)
Our app is a business app the companies use, so in one respect they can see the analytics, however they are not selling that data, it's just to see how a user may have interacted in the app etc. (this is all in the privacy policy)
Now, maybe I answered the questions wrong on the app store, so it got flagged but I also don't want to go around the rules and have apps removed for being in violation...
I did some testing with the ATT framework and noticed the 'alert' specifically say that the app would like to share your data with 3rd party apps, again something we do not do..
So the TLDR is, do we need to worry about this OR is it only for app that track/sell data using 3rd party API etc?

iOS Auto Renewable Subscription minimum functionality and Free Trial outside of StoreKit

I'm implementing IAP for SaaS application. I nearly finished with Store Kit's integration, receipt validation and other development related stuff. But I still have 2 more questions regarding Apple's guidelines which I couldn't find answer to on the docs.
The first question: I read on few places on the web that my app should provide minimum functionality even if the user is not subscribed. I offer a SaaS app and I don't want the user to be able to use the app if he's not subscribed. I will allow him to purchase a subscription if he is not subscribed. Is it enough for minimum functionality? (I suspect that these minimum functionality restrictions are old and obsolete, as they sound absurd).
The second question: I want to offer the user a possibility to try the app for free without subscribing at all (Without Store Kit's Free Trial option), because I don't want make the user make a commitment to pay before he tried the app (Apple also doesn't provide a convenient way to cancel the subscription, which may cause abandon-users to be charged even if they don't use the app, which will cause bad reviews etc). So the question is, can I do this without risking my app to get rejected? Does apple allow such kind of Free Trial feature which is managed solely by my server?
Forgive me if this info is somewhere on Apple's docs, but I couldn't find anything related. Thanks!
Okay after sending a query to Apple (Which didn't help me much to understand) and submitting an app to the App Store, I may have an answer:
Apple do allow SaaS apps and did approved my SaaS app. I honestly don't know if they checked my app enough to tell if it is okay but it was approved.
My app implements the Free Trial mechanism without App Store's free trial option. It is clearly written on the registration view controller that the app offers 3 month of free usage without obligation, and then continues without popping and App Store free trial page or something. My app was approved so I guess it is actually okay and within Apple's guidelines.
Hope it'll somehow help someone.

Apple is killing white labeled iOS apps! What should we do?

Many companies rely on white labeled apps to provide their services in a more personal way to their customers.
With a few adjustments we can set a logo and a splash screen and even pre-configure our app to our customer needs which has a great impact in their end user experience. Without this my users would need to use the app skipping a lot of configuration steps that in a generic app wouldn't be possible to skip.
According to apple: "Apps created from a commercialized template or app generation service will be rejected"
Now what can we do to to work around this?
Today I saw 4 apps being rejected and others are waiting for revision and I can anticipate that they will have the same ending.
Here's the revision result:
"4. 3 Design: Spam"
Guideline 4.3 - Design
We noticed that your app provides the same feature set as many of the
other apps you've submitted to the App Store; it simply varies in
content or language, which is considered a form of spam.
The next submission of this app may require a longer review time.
Next Steps
When creating multiple apps where content is the only varying element,
you should offer a single app to deliver differing content to
customers. Alternatively, you may consider creating a web app, which
looks and behaves similar to a native app when the customer adds it to
their Home screen. Refer to the Configuring Web Applications section
of the Safari Web Content Guide for more information.
Review the Design section of the App Store Review Guidelines.
Ensure your app is compliant with all sections of the App Store Review Guidelines and the Terms & Conditions of the Apple Developer
Program.
Once your app is fully compliant, resubmit your app for review.
Submitting apps designed to mislead or harm customers or evade the
review process may result in the termination of your Apple Developer
Program account. Review the Terms & Conditions of the Apple Developer
Program to learn more about our policies regarding termination.
If you believe your app is compliant with the App Store Review
Guidelines, you may submit an appeal. Alternatively, you may provide
additional details about your app by replying directly to this
message.
For app design information, check out the following videos: "Best
Practices for Great iOS UI Design" and "Designing Intuitive User
Experiences," available on the Apple Developer website.
You may also want to review the iOS Human Interface Guidelines for
more information on how to create a great user experience in your app.
Of course we can develop web apps, but apple can't forget that many features are only available in native or hybrid apps.
What should we do?
References:
https://blog.summitsync.com/did-apple-just-crush-white-label-apps-4aee14d00b78
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
The current answer is out of date. Apple revised their guidelines in which the customer must have their own Apple account now, paying the $99 a year. You can then submit a white labeled app under that account. We have been doing that the past three months with no problem. They wouldnt allow this approach before but now they do.
The Apple developer account can not be an individual account, but a company, educational or government type.
If you have a few apps under the same company account you can submit the apps if they can be proven to belong to the current company. We have three apps submitted under the same company account because the apps shared similar names to the company however I wouldn't do this for different companies.
We where having the same issue. We have talked to Apple, which where very kind and understanding.
Our app is one used mainly bij employees of a company and there for Apple suggested to use B2B app distribution via Volume Purchase Program.
If your app is just white labeled app that business can use for their customers then you are out of luck. Apple will not allow any white label apps in the app store any more.
Your option is to make one app which can switch between the different customers.
If you app is like web store this can be difficult, but as per Apple's example of the fan app of a football club switch per club should be in one app.
4.3 is a complete mess. With its active enforcement, Apple has indeed opened a Pandora's box. The biggest problem is that this policy is applied randomly.
My experience suggests that there are very few App Store reviewers who are paying attention to it during the review process. However, if you stumble upon such a reviewer, they will put some flag on your file, and all other reviewers will start to evaluate your apps for spam going forward. It seems like nothing is wrong with this approach, but it can lead to a distorted market.
In our case, we are waiting for years now to see Apple apply the same rules to our competition as it did to us. And the most ironic part is that throughout these years we've been ringing all the possible bells. Emails to Apple representatives, release notes, responses in resolution centre – nothing works.
For more details about our story check my Medium post. I have also written a second part which contains the timeline of my discussions with Apple representatives in which I highlighted competitors who violate 4.3, and Apple did nothing :(
So, the first problem with 4.3 is that it distorts the competition given how selective Apple is at implementing it.
The second problem is that the policy itself is too vague. Take our company, Theory Test Revolution, as an example. We build apps which help people pass their UK Driving Test.
Although we focus on theory tests, the reality is that our apps could be used as a platform to prepare for any multiple-choice test. Imagine if we wanted to release a couple of other MCQs apps. For example, to prepare for PADI diving exam and also to prepare for some pilot's licence exam.
How would 4.3 apply in this case? Would Apple demand that we bundle all of them in one app? How would we call it? :) "Any test you can imagine"? :)
There must be some limits. There are cases when marketing needs justify releasing separate apps even if their foundation is the same, as doing otherwise would simply confuse the users. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't care about fair competition enough. I guess their goal is to reduce the number of apps using this policy, with little regard to how fair this process is.
We are waiting for almost three years now to see our competitors being treated in the same way. And who knows – how much longer do we need to wait?
Had a call with Apple on July 13, 2020, 5 PM (GMT)
I had a conversation with the app review team regarding this matter today and I have concluded the following.
You can have the same codebase, same color, and same design for multiple apps but, a big BUT, is that you need to have some unique functionality in the app which provides a different experience to users.
They clearly said it's a difficult thing to do for developers and should take a longer time.
Only a way to know if some unique feature will work out is to send it for a review. It doesn't matter how long you have spent on developing that new feature. They also said they cannot help and is not permitted to insight anything beforehand.
They cleared that this is not a technical or logical issue to be resolved. For example, they are not going to check if the app icon or color is going to match with other app and decide it a spam or not spam but they care how users will be experiencing this app with the "WOW" factor or the app usefulness.
In short, the app must give another perspective to the user and the app should insist the user to use it because it has something new to give.
According to section 4.2.6 of: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#design
Apps created from a commercialized template or app generation service will be rejected unless they are submitted directly by the provider of the app’s content. These services should not submit apps on behalf of their clients and should offer tools that let their clients create customized, innovative apps that provide unique customer experiences. Another acceptable option for template providers is to create a single binary to host all client content in an aggregated or “picker” model, for example as a restaurant finder app with separate customized entries or pages for each client restaurant, or as an event app with separate entries for each client event.
So, rejoice! your apps can in fact be white labeled! they just must be:
submitted directly by the provider of the app’s content
There is nothing you can do to make Apple approve a copy of your app with only images and labels changed, it was their politics since iOS 3.
The only sure way you can do it is by creating a new developer account for the company you are selling the personalized version.
And B2B is also a viable option that also saves your client the 99$ yearly Apple bill.

iOS app waiting list for customers

I am building out a iOS & Android app. My app may not fully scale to support users and have some limited functionality out the gates. I wanted to put an invite list on the front of registration like Mailbox did a few years ago.
I was trying to read the Apple app store guidelines to creating a "waiting list / invite list" and couldn't get a clear picture. I assume Android is more flexible on this, so I figured I could start with Apple's guidelines first.
Here is what I can find.
In Apple's docs, it says under 3.2.2 "UnAcceptable"
(v) Arbitrarily restricting who may use the app, such as by location or carrier.
In this specific case, I am not blocking by location or carrier. I am just putting up a wall to use the app since some of my users can use it in a limited form, but I can't open it up to everyone on Day 1.
I understand I can run a "testflight" release, but I wanted to make our app available in the App Store for anyone to download since it will be publicly available, just not fully ready for a million people to hit it. My understanding is that the testflight release requires a bit more work based on their docs and isn't as simple as just putting it in the public app store so anyone can get to it.
Apple has the ultimate authority for approving and rejecting apps in their app store so nothing on SO can really be perfect advice. If you are really concerned about approval, you can try to contact apple developers support. Here are a few things I would advise:
Make sure in the developer notes for Apple when you submit to them you include a free account.
In the notes for the app store let the users know that it may take up to __ hours for their registration to get activated.
My understanding is you are doing this to handle the volume of users as you are launching the app. Be advised though that if you start restricting users too much you will possibly get poor reviews. Only restrict usage if absolutely required. If you run into issues make sure you are communicating with the users so they understand.
Good luck with you new app!

Who receives updates when I reduce the number of territories in which my app is sold?

under the 'practical, answerable problems that are unique to software development'- specifically iOS development...
I give you the following:
I'm specifically asking about how Apple/App Store handles the following issue: namely, who receives updates when I reduce the number of territories in which my app is sold.
For example, currently my app is sold in every territory around the world. For my next release, I want to reduce the territories to just one (my own country).
My question is: what happens to the users from the other countries who have already downloaded my app? Will they continue to receive updates (as I will continue to release updates for my own country/territory)? Or will they remain 'paused' on that final version of my app that was available in their own territory, in other words, effectively 'locked-out' of further updates?
I did attempt to research this issue before asking this question and while the two links below certainly 'overlap' my question, I'm still confused about what precisely happens.
If you do know the answer - and let me know - I'd be very grateful!
Best regards, John.
Research. Prior questions that were tangentially related to the IOS programming and app development environment. Please take a moment to consider the overall utility of this question before banning for being 'off topic'. I am not talking about planting geraniums here - I'm talking about something that is - or should be - of interest to coders and developers.
iTunes Connect App Update release for all countries?
Updating an iOS app in one territory only
Anyone who has already purchased (even if free) your app will continue to be able to download it forever. If you update the version, they get the new version, not the old one (unless you change the is version require to - then they get the newest one supported by their OS version.
If you pull an app completely (from all markets) you can flag it as being "for legal reasons". this prevents it from being re-downloaded, even from people who already purchased it. But this takes it off all markets, not just some of them.
It sounds like you need to contact Apple directly and describe why you want existing customers to have their right to access your app taken away. Maybe they can make a special case. In general though, they don't allow it.

Resources