{"id":30300,"date":"2020-09-30T16:52:07","date_gmt":"2020-09-30T20:52:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=30300"},"modified":"2021-05-03T15:22:19","modified_gmt":"2021-05-03T19:22:19","slug":"pop-out-timer-rejected-from-the-app-store","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2020\/09\/30\/pop-out-timer-rejected-from-the-app-store\/","title":{"rendered":"Pop Out Timer Rejected From the App Store"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jeremy Provost<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Pop Out Timer is an app that plays a video of a timer using Picture in Picture so the timer is always on screen. It has been available in the App Store for over 2 years. It has gone through 20+ rounds of App Review approval. Our most recent update has been rejected for undocumented and arbitrary reasons. And our request for a bug fix update was denied for undocumented and arbitrary reasons.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

We were told repeatedly on the phone that everything is handled on a “case-by-case basis”. When we proposed a potential solution (one that would require significant<\/i> time and effort on our part, essentially re-writing and re-purposing the entire app) we were told that we would have to do that work and submit and only then would they tell us if it was an acceptable use of Picture in Picture. That’s open and transparent?<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

We asked App Review if YouTube had a timer video on their website would it be allowed (hint: they already exist). We were told that would not be a problem for YouTube. How is that treating every developer the same?<\/p>\n

While we’re talking about YouTube, they only allow Picture in Picture for their Premium subscribers, seemingly violating 3.2.2 ii of the App Review Guidelines<\/a> by forcing users to pay for something that is a built-in capability provided by the operating system.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Marco Arment<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

YouTube locking iOS picture-in-picture behind Premium is indeed a violation of 3.2.2, but that’s almost never enforced (or particularly enforceable).<\/p>\n

It’s only marginally more enforceable than 4.5.4 (no promotional notifications), which is never enforced. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Scott Buscemi<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Enforce App Store rules and do not allow ads in notifications. Or at least require them to be an option.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Tim Schmitz<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

I got rejected for violating 3.2.2 a few years ago. As a tiny developer, there was nothing I could do about it. It’s super frustrating to see Apple make a huge stink about some rules, let others slide for big developers, then claim they treat everyone the same.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Ryan Jones<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Did you know Background Audio has been a premium YouTube feature for years? Maybe 3-4 years actually. Same exact violation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

David Barnard<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple should really put this in writing, but they have consistently approved bundling system features for years.<\/p>\n

And it really does make sense. Widgets and complications are crazy expensive for apps like weather apps, being able to bundle those features as part of a subscription is the only way I can offer those in \n@Weather_Up_. YouTube can’t show ads in PiP.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n