I have just had my app rejected for the second time. Apple quoted that it lacks interaction as well as expected qualities such as in app purchases.
After the first rejection i went through and redesigned the app, putting in lots of scrollable text boxes, slide Multi Object states, Pan and zoom, Aspect differences (ie horizontal vs vertical), Web content (twitter feeds, facebook etc), video, navto links from content pages, slideshows, pull out tabs, live links etc. Each article has at least 2-3 of these in it.
My question is how much do i need to put in? I think any more would be doing it just for the sake of it. It is an educational magazine on Marine Aquarium keeping, underwater conservation etc and has a lot of textual information as well as photos. I thought that bu adding a few different interactive features in each article that apple would approve it as it is now a lot more than what you could do as a web based app.
Also quoting that it lacks in app purchases as a reason for rejection? I always thought that this was a developers option, not a requirement. We only have 1 app presently in review and want to know how this goes before committing to more apps. Therefore i chose a single issue license where in app purchases are not allowed. If i had known that this is a requirement for magazine stlye apps, then we wouldnt have gone down this path to start with as the $1000's of dollars for a professional license is not economically viable for a small business....
Has anyone else been through this?
Im happy to share our published folio to anyone for feedback, as at the moment im really not sure what Apple are requiring.
If you have had a magazine type app approved in the App store and can offer any advice, it would be greatly appreciated. Email me your adobe email and i will share the published folio for your opinions.
I appreciate any advice.
We are experiencing the same response with our first app attempt. The review response was along the lines of 'simple interaction, would not appeal to a wide audience, and better suited as an HTML5 web mobile app (which apple claims they do not approve for the app store; such as mobile apps with a phonegap shell, etc).
After our response referring to this as a multi-publication shell to which we would make additional content available, their reply was opaque stating that apps are not approved due to the number of features and capabilities, but primarily those that provide an in-app experience you could not get anywhere else. I was under the assumption the DPS system was pretty good at offering a rich experience compared to the print world it is modeled after.
I was very excited after testing the capabilities of DPS but now see that regardless of the investments/time you put into these publications apple still has the final word on whether it will be available to the masses in their 'curated' store.
Best of luck to you, let us not give up.
App. Store is Hamelin. Whether you live there as a piper milking somebody else's money may depend more on the quality than on the quantity of interaction you add to your tune.
Have you taken a peep to approved apps in your trade? The diffences might shed some light in why you've been given a no. May be an accumulation of the very same effects just make more evident the lack of some other virtues.
But... Apple ecosystem? Hah! Truth is: Don't wear white socks. This is not Internet. It's a private club. Their place, their rules... their business. Some of the apps I see there are rather lacking in... whatever.
@Michael : It would be better if you cpoy paste the exact rejection mail from Apple. Also what kind of App are you creating? Newstand/Non Newstand - Free or retail subscription? Provide these details so we can better understand the rejection reason.
Thanks for all of your feedback.
Just heard back from Apple, apparently the amount of interaction is fine and they have retracted that statement. The reason it was rejected is some of the text was a little unsharp (was white text on black background from an old PDF file that was cut and pasted in. Am retyping it as we speak so hopefully will have that resolved and the app approved in a week or so.
Is there any way to put text in scrollable frames, Multi state objects etc without it becoming pixelated? That will be apples next point i would imagine....
Are you submitting a multi-issue app or a single edition app? If you are submitting multi-issue application you can avoid pixelation in those overlays by publishing two versions of your folio: one at 1024x768 and one at 2048x1536. You use the same inDesign source files, but create two different folios with the same name, etc., just different dimensions.
In release 23, due next week, you'll be able to specify that a scrollable frame or slideshow should be rendered as vector objects in a PDF, which will scale nicely on both iPad devices.
I suggest reading our guide on publishing to the new iPad, as it covers these issues in detail: http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/d igitalpublishingsuite/pdfs/dps-ipad3-bestpractice-apr2012.pdf.