Advertise here




Advertise here

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

App rejection because of auto-renewable subscription

dobrydobry Posts: 296Registered Users @ @
It's still possible to get rejection because of using auto-renewable subscription model. Wanted to us it in my new, free business app, so users get additional functionality (Premium).

"Based on product functionality, it would be more appropriate to use the Non-Renewing Subscription In-App Purchase type because the service offered by your application requires the user to make an advance payment to access the content or receive the service."

Replies

  • dev666999dev666999 Posts: 3,613New Users @ @ @ @ @
    edited December 2016
    dobry wrote: »
    It's still possible to get rejection because of using auto-renewable subscription model. Wanted to us it in my new, free business app, so users get additional functionality (Premium).

    "Based on product functionality, it would be more appropriate to use the Non-Renewing Subscription In-App Purchase type because the service offered by your application requires the user to make an advance payment to access the content or receive the service."

    Apple is now cracking down on what is and isn't appropriate for a subscription model?

    There have been discussions on this board, regarding users getting pissed off when faced with subscriptions for content that would be more appropriate for IAPs.

    My guess is that Apple, after promoting subscriptions, is now fine-tuning the rules.

    Bottom line:

    They may be starting to limit that content to things that change periodically, such as music, data, and news feeds.

    This is interesting. Hope I am wrong. Let us all know how it shakes out.

    I would file an appeal to get more clarity, just in case the reviewer is "making" up his own rules. ;)
  • dobrydobry Posts: 296Registered Users @ @
    edited December 2016
    In Review Guidelines there are amongst others "new game levels" and "multi-player support" mentioned for auto-renewable subscriptions.
    In our business app we offer additional functionalities for upgrade, which is in my opinion similar to above mentioned examples in games.

    I filed an appeal correction: sent a message to review team. Here the answer:
    "Auto-Renewable Subscriptions should include continued 'new' content and features or cloud services, and should not be used to simply unlock an existing static feature."
    Post edited by dobry on
  • savannasavanna Posts: 266New Users @ @
    So this isn't saying that subscriptions aren't allowed to enable 'existing static features' but rather they cant be 'auto-renewable' subscriptions.

    Ive not looked into this much but whats the practical difference between non-renewing and auto-renewing? What does the user have to do to keep their subscription going if it doesn't renew automatically?
  • dobrydobry Posts: 296Registered Users @ @
    edited December 2016
    App review team suggested using non-renewing subscription. However I will use non-consumable subscription (as earlier for other apps), because users anyway don't like subscriptions and I miss the advantages of auto-renewing.

    For non-renewing subscriptions the user needs to buy the subscription again after it expired. There may be a longer gap and Apple takes again 30% instead 15% (auto-renewable after 1 year).
  • savannasavanna Posts: 266New Users @ @
    This is disappointing, as I recall apple explicitly said on their initial auto renewal summary page that SaaS was supported by this. I cant find that now, I don't know if they changed it.

    Did you mean 'non-consumable subscription' or just non-consumable IAP? So pay once and you get the features forever? Id imagine a subscription needs to be 'consumed' in that it ends when the time period ends, which sounds the same as a non-renewing subscription to me?

    For your case isn't it better to do subscription? Ideally auto-renewal but if you cant do that, allow the user to renew manually so you at least get the opportunity to get more from the user?
  • dobrydobry Posts: 296Registered Users @ @
    I changed to non-consumable IAP (pay once, get the additional features). I don't know if non-renewing subscription would be the better choice.
  • savannasavanna Posts: 266New Users @ @
    edited December 2016
    OK.

    Well what your appeal told you is not what schiller said in all those interviews earlier in the year.

    Its also not what the review guidelines say, it specifically lists 'software as a service' as a 'permissible use'. A subscription to access functions in software is precisely that.

    Im interested in adopting the SaaS model and now I don't know if my work will be wasted. Fucking apple man.

  • dobrydobry Posts: 296Registered Users @ @
    Sorry, need to correct my 1st posting from 18th December. Seems I didn't file an appeal, just sent a message to review team. So the following answer was from review team.

    "Auto-Renewable Subscriptions should include continued 'new' content and features or cloud services, and should not be used to simply unlock an existing static feature."
  • savannasavanna Posts: 266New Users @ @
    Sounds like the review person was using outdated information, I wonder if an appeal would help? I would quote the review guidelines where it explicitly says what you're doing is allowable.
  • dev666999dev666999 Posts: 3,613New Users @ @ @ @ @
    savanna wrote: »
    Sounds like the review person was using outdated information, I wonder if an appeal would help? I would quote the review guidelines where it explicitly says what you're doing is allowable.

    You're probably right. But you can argue this all day with that reviewer, only to get that pesky...

    "It would be appropriate...."

    Annoying that it has to be so byzantine.
Sign In or Register to comment.