Inkwell Rejected From the App Store
I submitted Inkwell for iOS to Apple for review on April 21st. It has gone through numerous rejections, code changes, resubmissions, clarifications, one phone call, and one appeal to the review board, which I’m still waiting to hear back on.
[…]
The app didn’t have a way to report objectionable content or block users. This rejection was bizarre to me since it’s an RSS reader where people choose to follow users.
[…]
The app doesn’t use in-app purchase so that Apple can take a percentage of Micro.blog revenue. I streamlined the app by removing creation features such as posting and highlighting, removed sign-up and external links, and even removed the app from all storefronts except the US, where there are different rules thanks to Epic vs. Apple. I believe it should now qualify under either 3.1.3(a) “reader apps” or 3.1.3(f) “stand-alone companion apps”.
[…]
Apple’s [Jaguar-era] Inkwell branding was short-lived, and the trademark is now listed as “dead” by the US Patent & Trademark Office. Yet the name still appears on Apple’s trademark page. This is what the reviewer found and objected to, even though other Inkwell apps have been approved without issue.
Dealing with the App Store is the worst part of developing for Apple platforms.
As powerful AI development tools drive a surge in app submissions, Apple’s App Review process has seamlessly scaled to handle the volume and to help ensure every new app and app update meets the App Store’s high standards for privacy, security, and quality.
Apple keeps emailing me about WWDC when all I want them to do is email me about reviewing my Mac app.
Previously:
Update (2026-05-22): Jason Anthony Guy:
Apple loves its big numbers, and its execs will happily hawk them when it’s to their benefit. But what about the flip side? How about reporting the number of legitimate developers rejected for inane reasons? Should those rejections really be promoted as part of some great achievement? Apple’s proud of the “306,000 new developers” it’s welcomed to the platform, but how many saw their apps deplatformed? Apple brags about how many fraudulent apps get blocked; what about the egregious approvals?
Come to think of it, is Apple really patting itself on the back for finally taking down apps everyone but Apple knew were fraudulent from the jump? Is Apple counting those as both approvals and rejections? My mind boggles.
Radu Dutzan (via Nick Heer):
@doppi for Mac has been stuck there for two weeks. First of all, it takes them at least five full calendar days to review a Mac app. Deplorable.
But not just that, they’ve rejected the app twice, and for the dumbest shit. The second time, they cited one of the same reasons I had already explained, making me feel like it’s worthless to spend any effort trying to treat the process as rational.
After a full month of Apple rejections, the iOS version of Inkwell has been approved.
[…]
I care a lot about the names of things. In the App Store, Micro.blog is called simply… “Micro.blog”. No gimmicky taglines appended to the name. So it was a little painful that as a last resort, I’ve decided to temporarily rename the Inkwell app to “Ink•well for Micro.blog”. Yes, with a bullet character in the middle of the word.
I tried a few other renames before that, keeping Inkwell spelled correctly but shuffling it around with other words. “Ink•well” is the only name that Apple approved.
[…]
To more narrowly make the case for Inkwell approval under review guidelines section 3.1.3, I’ve also removed two features from the app[…] These are important parts of Inkwell that exist on Android, macOS, and the web.
9 Comments RSS · Twitter · Mastodon
I’m sure Inkwell is a lovely app built with care, by someone in the community that does things the right way (no dark patterns, or subscriptions traps). But, of course, Apple is a giant bureaucracy now, and there’s not enough money in helping and encouraging folks like Manton. So, the bureaucracy will crush his spirit instead.
Back in the days when everyone, even Gruber, was piling in to criticise Apple for how long in tooth, and neglected the 2013 Mac Pro had become, Manton Reece was on his podcast literally saying that Apple should cancel the Mac Pro, because "no one needed it", that iMacs, and laptops were good enough for "everyone".
Well, no one "needs" inkwell (whatever it is), so, really, he should just give up and cancel it.
There seems to be a certain class of reviewers who, if you get unlucky enough to both get them and they find an initial reason to reject, will do anything in their power to justify their original rejection, even if their subsequent reasons aren’t related—the pulling out a dead Inkwell trademark after the initial rejection of 3.1.3 is a prime example.
@Someone what a bizarre grudge to hold and what a strange circumstance in which to wield it. Mad for 13 years and supporting Apple’s terrible developer-bullying practices because of an opinion.
To be fair to Someone, the podcast was probably after 2013, so maybe he only held on to this grudge for ten or so years, which is, of course, perfectly reasonable.
@pillyok @Plume : The podcast was probably around 2015-2016, but you know, you have to make sure you get your schadenfreude & karma rings closed. ;)
I simply don't understand why Apple platform devs still do it. You could just stop, you know. The world would continue, and the platforms would just enshittify more quickly, without you. It's OK.
(Examination of the true motives of developers, particularly those that support or enable Apple's policies, are, of course, left as an exercise for the reader.)
