Had anyone ever had a DPS app rejected for being "too book-like." We just had our first DPS iPad app rejected from iTunes for being too "book-like." The app we designed is a one off show catalog, with interactive images and videos. Has anyone had this same experience with Apple? If so what was the resolution?
If you search the forum you will find that yes, indeed, it has happened.
It happened to my client after submitting two accepted apps a third was rejected. We submitted a list of similar apps and they reversed the decision.
I’ve heard of cases where they haven’t.
Good luck. You’re going to need it.
I had a report about the Chinese New Year rejected as too book like; it had slideshows, pull-out navigation, external links to web sites etc, I responded to Apple saying these features could not possibly be replicated in an eBook, told them we already had it as PDF and that an App Store version would greatly enhance the user experience. It then got accepted. :-)
Still the whole process still only took 2 weeks for it to be finally approved, so can't complain too much!
Hope that helps calm your nerves.
We are within 1-2 days of submitting our first DPS app to the store and this topic has me concerned. It is basically what you are describing: an interactive catalog for our company with videos, scrolling text boxes, image shows, and all the other bells and whistles available in DPS. I am at a loss as to what we can add that would make it more "app" like and less "catalog" like given the tools in DPS. Does this sound like your issue and what you submitted?
I never had any doubt that what I had produced was an App, and yes what I produced does sound similar to what you were describing. In fact, my app was far more image lead than text lead, so couldn't have been further from a "book" if it tried.
I'm wondering in we can work with Adobe to somehow approach Apple about the style of Apps we are producing.
Apple clearly has an auto review process that DPS apps are getting caught in, and then at the next review process stage, gets approved. Even if we could understand what elements of our app it was, that triggered the rejection; that would be good!
Great idea Alistair
We have had 5 book apps aprroved but that was before iBooks2. I wonder if Apple are trying to steer "books" to its iBooks Author app. We are working on a couple in this format, nothing like as inspiring as working with DPS but it does cut out Adobe's take and so publishers are interested.
Do you have a list of the similar apps you submitted for comparison? We are having the same problem here at the church. For us to add any mor interactivity would be to do it just to do it not to improve the user experiance.
Personally I think if we could easily disable page swipe and use strictly buttons to navigate through content then it would be less book like and this issue would be reduced.
Otherwise as far as apple is concerned what we are doing here with DPS is book like. Now that they have there own software and Store (ibooks and ibook store) they will want to funnel all this in to ibooks. In that respect perhaps dps can help with that process
My app is a digital scrapbook. Been working on this for over a year.
Here is part of what I sent in my appeal: (sorry it is long--but I'm just flabbergasted they rejected me twice!)
“One FlyGirl's WWII Scrapbook” was created to be an exciting, illustrated, multimedia app. With interactive elements on almost every page, it is filled with pictures, videos, music, and graphics. With great respect, I submit the following clarification.
Even though the title includes the word ‘book,’ it is not a book; rather, it is an interactive journey into the life of a female pilot, flying American military aircraft in World War II. The centerpiece of the app is the visual experience, propelled by the interactivity and the sounds. It is the interactivity that is part of the character and fun of the scrapbook. I do not believe a more traditional ibook would create the same stimulating, engaging learning experience as this app does.
Many of the screens created for this app cannot be duplicated in an ibook. In particular, please consider the following:
Interactive overlays that include dynamic photos with pinch and zoom, panoramas and scrollable frames, html5 animation, and over 60 screens with Multi-State Objects.
WASP Across America: US MAP with over 100 buttons. Clicking the buttons on the map brings up faces and video clips of individual WASP (the overlooked Women Airforce Service Pilots, WWII).
Congressional Gold Medal: The gold medal spins as it is ‘swiped’ showing both sides. (The spinning Gold Medal looks fabulous on the ipad)
Music or sounds play as soon as the next screen loads or a button is pressed, causing the sound to play.
NOW WHAT do I do????
Any suggestions? There are over 100 screens (OK, PAGES)-- each will have to be completely re-done for ibooks2. Any suggestions on how, using DPS, I can create more of an APP to apple's satisfaction???
wow, that seems very tough. Apple do have policies about personal experiences etc but even so it looks like your app has a real historical value, and not just one persons memoirs.
Go back again, tell them that you already have this in a PDF format for people to read as a book, but you want people and schools in particular to enjoy the multi functions of this app.
One important difference, but would mean a lot more work, would be to create it in dual rotation, not sure if thats possible with iBooks?? but thats one thing I did when my app got rejected as "too book like"
Again push the fact that this is an historical app, and that you feel with your experience would be impossible to re-create in any other format. May be as a concesion take out the word scrapbook, it may be falling at the most basic app hurdle.
Clearly there is not a real person reviewing your content here, as from your screen shots it would appear to be highly engaging!
Good luck, and keep going.
If now Apple starts to reject this kind of publication...
Maybe they think that you could do the same with iBooks Author so you should maybe add more interactivity with MSOs... Who knows what's their policy now...
I agree with Alistair. That's a tough rejection. My guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that using the word "scrapbook" in the app name is causing the problem. Apple doesn't want personal photo albums or ebooks to clutter the App Store. Your app obviously doesn't fall into that category. As Alistair suggested, try again without using the word "scrapbook." And when you do get the app approved, please provide the link. It looks interesting.
Thanks so much for all the comments.
The app has both portrait and landscape views--
I've about decided to work with a computer class and add a few more buttons at the bottom-- and interactive sections -- including a coloring book and a WWII Timeline. This will make my fee to DPS for a single edition completely moot-- But, the icloud membership did that as well;)
That said, I do love DPS...and have loved using it to the max, so to speak. If I had uploaded this app 6 months ago, I don't think there would have been a problem.
Thanks again-- I'm off to find a few teenage code wizzards!!!
Maybe Adobe/Apple need to get together and create a new category of storage area within the apple appstore -
"i-media" or something that holds all the interative publications/marketing materials/and one off publications like the fabulous scrap book above that are not functioning business or gaming 'apps' but not books either.
In my case if I get rejected again Im in a very bad place with what has been promised too my client. Not sure what we can do to move forward?
I just had a single-edition app rejected for the same reason. It is text-heavy, but also contains several videos and overlays, more interactivity by far than a single-edition app that I submitted (and was approved) just a few months ago. (It also contains advertising, which you'd normally not find in a "book.")
Can anybody confirm that this is a trend? It will make single-edition folios a tougher sell.
Nancy, good luck with your project. Looks very impressive.
Steve Ive been reading several threads and it does seem a recent trend in the last few months.
It makes single editions not just a hard sell but almost redundant if its impossible to get onto the app store. Adobe needs to find a solution here or the promises and promotional shows selling the wonders of DPS are difficult to justify.
Its wonderful technology but it needs a platform that accepts it with ease.
If this happens to my future-soon-to-be-released 1.2 folio, I "burn" the whole Apple campus in Cupertino, because we are on a very important milestone and the client has already paid a lot of money to set up the DPS workflow. There is no way to recreate our app with iBooks, it is just impossible and I just wonder if Apple's reviewers have a single idea of how to tools are different.
Also, Adobe should finally make all Flash animations convertible within InDesign into something that iOS understands so DPS really outstands iBooks Author.
Wishing you ALL success with your apps! I've just re-submitted mine. I tried to upload a brand new app, but once you choose the name, it is locked in. So, I resubmitted the code--along with changes to the 'category' box. Did not find any code wizzards--but DPS is more than good enough for me!
The word "BOOK" is now nowhere to be found--in the title or anywhere else. In my first submission, I had also chosen the category "book," because, at the time, that made the most sense. NOT ANYMORE! This time I chose education and resource-- which this is.
I've also submitted the following paragraph in the App review information box:
App includes over 60 screens with multi state slide-shows, interactive overlays, dynamic pinch and zoom photos, panoramas, scrollable frames, html5 animation, music, and videos. Full PDF articles are included as additional resources. Thanks!
I'm crossing my fingers...and will let you all know as soon as I hear.
God bless you all-- and Happy New Year!
I am delighted to announce that my FLYGIRL WWII app has BEEN APPROVED! Persistence pays off--as does posting on this forum!
Several tips were suggested as I struggled to remove the "TOO BOOKLIKE" description of my rejection. I do think it important to repeat 2 simple ones--that didn't occur to me at the time -- I took the word 'book' out of any description (it was a WWII Scrapbook) -- and I did NOT check the category "BOOK" -- I changed it to "education" and "resources". I hope this helps!!!
In the meantime, if you have a minute, here is the link:
THANKS AGAIN for all your help--and best of luck with the apps to follow!!!
Always a fan;))))
Congratulations, delighted that they saw sense at last, also your comments will be helpful for others having difficulties with the approval process and understanding what is expected.
Phew - Well done on getting it in there.
Thanks for your postings everyone - it seems that together we may learn what Apple is looking for. Ill try to resubmit my app this week whilst they are in a good mood!
Who knows maybe it was just the xmas rush - anything too difficult was rejected from a word search?
But as a precaution I will also remove publication and book from any description and live text.
So this whole discusion means that i cannot use DPS as and alternate publishig way for eBook? I cannot make an DPS app which will include ebook and deliver it thruu AppStore and Google Play?
My last idea was making digital publishing of ebooks and selling them thru DPS, as an extension of my offer.
It is not possible in AppStore or it cannot be done whole in DPS?
Did you make sure you explicitly pointed out the interactive features of your application during the submission process? Did you take care to not file it under the book category, nor call it a book in the description?
APP STORE REVIEW TEXT.
I wish to contest the decision “Lifemark homeowner” is too book like, It is designed from the base up as interactive app and it is not in any way intended to be a book. We already have an interactive PDF and this app was created to add more interactivity and to allow viewers to see more using the superior functionality of an iPad
This App includes over 22 ‘ipad pages’ with 20 of those containing multiple forms of interactive content to immerse the viewer with over 40 individual engagement tools and actions.
Interactive touch content includes revealing complex information through interactive overlays with pop up descriptions over real photos, interactive highlighting of diagrams of relevant facts, multi state slide-shows to browse through, dozens of scrollable frames to reveal greater content and more. Tha app also links to customer website. The viewer is required to fully interact to reveal information that is not available any other way than on the Apple Ipad and using this type of engaging interactive app.
This app is visual and image based - it is not text based like a book. (most screen views have just 20-50 words)
I ask you review your rejection decision and approve this as an app.
To assist I have revised app and it is attached. Revisions include any “static poster pages” have been removed or enhanced with touch technology and the cover page is now dynamic with multiple images moving and capturing the readers attention.
PS. This app has taken 4 months of hard work to get to the point of being a fabulous example of apple ipad technology at work.
Customers who have seen the test app love it, and as a result I know 52 pads have been ordered based on seeing this technology and seeing its potential in the market place. We all win with this going to market.
PS Book, publication, etc were removed from all text and descriptions.
They also suggested I use ibooks Author.
I had an app rejected a year ago for being too book like, so I can empathise with you.
I personally do not believe apps are reviewed by a human initially, surely there must be too many to be looked at and get approved on an individual basis. (if some one know different please tell me!)
So I agree with Neil, double check you do not use the word book in any part of the description ie Buglegirl had scrapbook in her description.
Also, and I'm not sure if this helped me, but I tweeked my navigation so there was both horz and vert navigation, so the app didnt just read left to right as it did initially. I dont know what yours does. However it certainly has enough interactivity, and so that is why I believe its is falling over at a very early automated process, that purely just checks for the most basic criteria, ie it's got 20 pages left to right, or its got book in the description, or book as a 2nd category, something basic, because if a human was actually looking at it, they couldnt possibly think it was a book, would they?
Keep going fella, you'll get there.
Whilst there is a part of me that is irritated by Apple's rigorous approval process, you only have to look at some of the utter rubbish that is put onto the Play store (Android stores) to realise it's a good thing!
Not sure about that Bob, at least it shows to Apple that other routes have been taken to provided the same/similar content.
Perhaps we should create a comparsion chart of features that iBooks can do versus DPS, then DPS users can focus on features that set the two app routes apart.
I've not looked at the iBooks feature set for a while but can you have 360 spins and MSO's in iBooks for example.
I think it would be good for new DPS users to understand how to set themselves apart from iBooks, as this Apple rejection is starting to happen quite a lot.
What do you think?