top | item 3294978

IOS App Store Submission Checklist - anything else to add?

201 points| stefanbutlin | 14 years ago |ontestpad.com | reply

72 comments

order
[+] aculver|14 years ago|reply
I've got one you can add: iPad applications don't have to support all four orientations. However, whichever orientation you do support (in our instance, portrait) you must support the top-up and bottom-up variations unless some special circumstance warrants only supporting one or the other. Just had a submission rejected earlier this week for this reason. FYI, here is the response we received from Apple:

10.1

We found that your app does not comply with the Apple iOS Human Interface Guidelines, as required by the App Store Review Guidelines.

Specifically, we noticed your app only supported the top-up variant of the portrait orientation, but not the bottom-up variant.

While supporting both variants of both orientations, each with unique launch images, provides the best user experience and is recommended, we understand there are certain applications that must run in the portrait orientation only. In this case, it would be appropriate to support both variants of that orientation in your application, e.g., Home button up and down.

Addressing this issue typically requires only a simple and straightforward code modification. However, if you require assistance, the Apple Developer Support Team is available to provide code-level assistance.

For more information, please review the Aim to Support All Orientations section of the iOS Human Interface Guidelines.

[+] Ein2015|14 years ago|reply
I often have my iPad with the home button on top while on the stand. Easier for charging...

(Just in case anybody wonders why they'd want both orientations...)

[+] baddox|14 years ago|reply
Is there not an easy way to just say "turn my app upside down when the user flips the device"? For most apps (i.e. ones that don't use the accelerometer, etc.) this should be trivial, and shouldn't require any real effort from the app developer.

Also, I agree with Apple that both orientations should be supported. Depending on how you're holding or docking the device, and where it's convenient for the headphone jack to protrude, it's quite conceivable for users to want to use both orientations.

[+] TheFuture|14 years ago|reply
Thanks for letting us know. I actually have an iPad app currently in the store (approved in October) that only supports top-up portrait. I guess it really depends how picky the reviewer wants to be. I will make sure I fix it before my next update.
[+] sashthebash|14 years ago|reply
Don't believe the crash reports in iTunes connect, they lie, your app does crash... a lot, so add a crash reporter.

The best I found so far is the self-hosted QuincyKit (http://quincykit.net/) or if you don't want to fiddle with your own server, use HockeyApp (http://www.hockeyapp.net/).

[+] coob|14 years ago|reply
With regards to the HIG:

At a recent Apple iOS Tech Talk the engineer giving the session mentioned that breaking the HIG wasn't expressly forbidden, but that you needed to "know the rules in order to break them". Break them, if it's better than sticking to them.

[+] JimDabell|14 years ago|reply
This isn't true. I've had two rejections for HIG violations - one was an unclear error message (authentication failure-style message when no network was available) and the other was orientation problems (one of the official iPad app templates at the time supported three orientations by default, which is against the rules).

Specifically, section 10.1 of the App Store review guidelines states:

> Apps must comply with all terms and conditions explained in the Apple iOS Human Interface Guidelines

It is very much the case that you can often get away with it (see for example all the apps with splash screens), but it is "expressly forbidden".

[+] mirkules|14 years ago|reply
Here's one to add: if your app has a in-app purchase of more than $100, your app HAS to be rated 18+ because of a fear of teenagers can run up their parents' credit card bills.

It's somewhat unfair because 18+ means adult content, but an app might not contain adult content (as was the case with our client's self-help books/videos).

[+] dunham|14 years ago|reply
Inkling is rated 12+ and seems to have more than one >$100 in-app purchase. (e.g. the Biology text @ $120 and Supply Chain Management Text @ $140)
[+] scott_s|14 years ago|reply
Does not "accidentally" contain such material, e.g. unrestricted web browsing, explicit lyrics, unfiltered collections of books.

Is that still true? That is, they will still reject a new e-book reader because it can read the Kama Sutra, and they would still reject an app that allowed the user to navigate to a porn site? I have the Wikipedia app installed, which I think would violate those terms.

[+] xsmasher|14 years ago|reply
Yes, unfortunately. If the app does have unrestricted web browsing then you have to rate it 17+.
[+] waterside81|14 years ago|reply
Can someone elaborate on the no pricing information within the app point? If we have an in-app purchase, we can't tell people how much it costs? That sounds opposite to what I'd expect.
[+] danielamitay|14 years ago|reply
They specifically mean hard-coded references. For IAPs and the like, you should be querying the server for the localized price.

A good example is a "Share via Email" function that presents a pre-filled Email Composer with "Download this $1 app." This causes problems if you happen to change the price down the road (or if users are in a different economic zone).

[+] stefanbutlin|14 years ago|reply
True. Have changed to 'does not hardcode any price information...'
[+] uptown|14 years ago|reply
"Lite versions must not prompt (up-sell) the full or paid version"

Is this true? I play a game that periodically shows an up-sell to the paid version as an alternative to the app's advertisements.

[+] TillE|14 years ago|reply
By "prompt" I assume they mean an actual modal popup, or something else that can't be ignored. Advertising seems ok, but forcing the user to make a choice is not.
[+] sanderson1|14 years ago|reply
Here's one to add to the list:

Don't submit any sort of tethering app. Chances are it will be approved and removed within a couple of hours. Apple is 2 for 2 so far: Netshare and iTether.

[+] marquis|14 years ago|reply
Is this some kind of cat&mouse game from within Apple? Whoever is approving these apps must know what is going to happen. While it must be stressful for the app owner, as a spectator it's amusing (and granted, it's an issue I'm not affected by).
[+] mirkules|14 years ago|reply
This one is interesting. If your app does something more than just tethering, it will likely be approved. Your app should change the data in some way for the receiving machine. Automotive telematics systems do this already, for example they use apps to stream music and map data to the head unit (pandora, gmaps) while basically reformatting the data for the head unit.

In other words, don't create a general tethering app, but a specific "service" for another device.

[+] stefanbutlin|14 years ago|reply
Wouldn't that come under "does not replicate the functionality of a native app"? (not that they're consistent about this one)
[+] aaronbrethorst|14 years ago|reply
Do the developers end up receiving payment for the copies sold before it is pulled from the App Store?
[+] p_monk|14 years ago|reply
You should remember you turn off NSZombies before submitting.
[+] Aqua_Geek|14 years ago|reply
> App looks well designed and of high quality

While this is wonderful to have on a checklist, let's be honest: the vast majority of apps fall short of this goal (and that's putting it nicely).

[+] AznHisoka|14 years ago|reply
"e.g. Images and icons are not framed with a "polaroid" style (thicker at the bottom) border"

Can someone give me an example of a Polaroid border? Is it just a frame around an image?

[+] karolist|14 years ago|reply
It's a fat white border around the image. A variation of this often imitates a photo stack each having such frame.

Google images keywords: polaroid frame, polaroid stack.

Sample: http://blog.simplyjean.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/polaro...

What's interesting that this wouldn't be allowed, I think there's many apps using this framing style in the app store already.

[+] ChrisMoisan|14 years ago|reply
We got a reject from Apple for this very reason. Don't have an example but the dimensions for the photos below - best advised to avoid using these proportions! Physical = 3.5" x 4.25" 0.25 inch white border at the top, .1875 inches on the sides and .875 at the bottom
[+] jen_h|14 years ago|reply
Good list. Would add: Does not include the names of any other competing platform (e.g., Android, Blackberry) in your description or inside the binary.
[+] kayzee|14 years ago|reply
Excellent checklist. Thanks OP. I also like how you are keeping it up to date with commenter's suggestions.
[+] lloeki|14 years ago|reply
> Lite versions must not prompt (up-sell) the full or paid version

That one I see quite a lot. Example: Cut The Rope Holiday Gift (which is free) proposes me to get CTR Original and CTR Experiments on the last tab.

[+] stefanbutlin|14 years ago|reply
Agreed. I've reworded the Lite version checks a bit.
[+] _corbett|14 years ago|reply
I once had an app rejected as it was "not amusing" (it was a "Unicorn Chaser" app). I also have had apps rejected for putting "iPad" in the wrong section of the name. For example "X for iPad" is fine, but "iPad X" is not.
[+] larrik|14 years ago|reply
Here's one:

If you are using Appirater or any other service that uses your app ID for something. Make real real sure you are using the right ID for your app.

Easy to mess up on new apps.