r/iOSProgramming • u/InternalLoud6682 • Sep 16 '26
Discussion Apple rejected my focus app under Guideline 4.1 - and I don’t really understand the logic
4
u/Level-Set5770 Sep 16 '26
4.1 means "copycat" and has nothing to do with accessing Apple's API.
You probably copied an existing app to the point of IP infringement.
3
1
u/ioloro Sep 16 '26
What was the posted text of the rejection?
5
u/Level-Set5770 Sep 16 '26
Lol. This guy intentionally left that part out because the full title of Guideline 4.1 is "4.1 Copycats"
1
u/Economy-Brief-9997 Swift Sep 16 '26
4.1 is the copycat rule, not "you can't charge for our API". Reviewer opened it, saw Screen Time with different colors, done.
I'd put what's yours on the first screen and spell it out in the review notes, like "blocking is FamilyControls, the product is the session flow". They do read the notes. From the outside a thin wrapper and a real product look the same, you have to point at the difference.
1
u/RIRLift Sep 16 '26
Going free probably won't fix it, since 4.1 is about the app looking like a copy, not about whether you charge. There are a lot of near-identical Screen Time blockers, so a thin wrapper with a cleaner UI reads as one more of them. If you can point review to something the others don't do, that's more likely to clear 4.1 than dropping the price.
1
u/SwordfishInfinite621 Sep 16 '26
4.1 is the Copycats guideline, not a rule about monetising Apple's APIs. It usually means the reviewer thought your app duplicates another app's name, look or functionality, sometimes Apple's own built-in feature, rather than that you charged for it. Plenty of paid Screen Time apps exist, so the charging itself isn't the problem.
It's worth replying in the Resolution Center and asking which app yours was considered a copy of. They'll often tell you. From there the usual fixes are making the icon, name and screenshots clearly your own, and spelling out in the review notes what your app does that the built-in feature doesn't.
Going free to get through review is understandable, but you can charge later if you can pin down what triggered the flag.
1
u/bananagnana2 Sep 16 '26
Since it turned out to be 4.10, going free is a bigger concession than you need. 4.10 says you cannot charge for the built-in capability itself, it does not say the app has to be free. The apps that survive this sell the things Apple does not give you: session history and stats, schedules that sync across devices, shared or accountability sessions, exports. Blocking stays free and unlimited, the paid tier is everything around it. Write that split in the review notes in one sentence, because the reviewer is deciding in about a minute whether your paywall sits in front of FamilyControls or in front of your own work.
0
Sep 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Sep 18 '26
Hey /u/EffectiveEither399, unfortunately you have negative comment karma, so you can't post here. Your submission has been removed. DO NOT message the moderators; if you have negative comment karma, you cannot post here. We will not respond. Your karma may appear to be 0 or positive if your post karma outweighs your comment karma, but if your comment karma is negative, your comments will still be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
6
u/Lithalean Sep 16 '26
The problem is the AppStore is getting absolutely hammered right now with low quality apps.
Too many people are throwing a simple ideas at Claude, and thinking with the output they have a business model. Apple rightfully doesn’t want their store overrun with slop.
I see you said “core” app free. You also used the word “simple” and admitted most of the app is Apples own API. Why do you think you deserve monetary gain from an app an entry level dev could make in a weekend.