“4.3”

>The copycat section seems the most relevant.Seems not.From your comment, tho., it appears you've heard the recent chatter about which guideline is more likely to apply. Search here on: 4.3

I would try appealing the app rejection notice. Have you tried that yet? Explain the situation, and let them know that you deleted the other apps. Hopefully they allow that one in.The guidelines are very unclear. 4.3 Design - Spam has to do with not creating similar apps, but they also can delete apps they deem as low quality or a saturated category. It's a very broad spectrum, guideline, and it seems to only judge developers on a case by case basis. There doesn't seem to be any clear, black and white rules regarding the guideline. It's at the discretion of the reviewer's subjective opinion on the app submission.We've encountered both scenarios with our apps, and heard other stories from other developers too.I also believe that this guideline is a very slippery slope for Apple. How many developers that supported Apple by purchasing products will cease doing so? How many customers of legitimate developers, snagged by this new guideline, will drive consumers to other platforms, and in turn, other devic

Read the very long posts on 'spamming the app store' and rejections under 'guideline 4.3' on these forums. I think what you are proposing is mentioned as a solution to the 4.3 rejections.

Wouldn't that run afoul of the 4.3 guideline everyone (who makes cookie cutter apps) is complaining about, regarding spamming the store with almost-identical apps?IAP promo codes do exist and do work. I'm not sure that would help the situation much though. Apple really doesn't seem to encourage arbitrarily charging different people different prices for the same product.

Re: 4.3. They let you launch a few similar apps before shutting you down. Do you know that promo codes work for IAPs? There were a lot of complaints when they were first 'released'.

One of the developer that you listed - eTips - has hundreds of similar apps in the app store and one of their app update was approved 1 week ago.Same thing with the other one. Ulmon had an app updated a month ago.Wow apple, great job in being consistent with 4.3 spam guideline. Talk about complete selective punishment.

>and also similar design >because as a great part of features will be shared between the apps, we will reuse great (or at least some) of the codeIf app review sniffs out seemingly templated apps in your case, I think your primary concern should be with 4.2.6, instead. 4.3 kicks in when you have more than a few apps...have you a number, yet?Perhaps the best approach is for each client to have their own dev account, and their own unique app. Only app review knows how they will react otherwise.

I had a similar issue, and it took a lot of email, phone calls and appeals to finally have Apple understand the apps I'm developing. The reviewers are over zealous in their quest to enforce rule 4.3 and are doing more harm than good. I felt it was a huge waste of time and energy.

Did you try to submit the app under your own developer account? Or did you enroll the client, and submit their customized app through that client’s own developer account? (Note that you could contract to manage each client’s enrollment, which might potentially allow creating some nice ongoing revenue streams for you. Thus, if Apple approves each client’s apps when submitted under their own account, then rule 4.3 could create additional business opportunities for you.)

Guidelines 4.3 is in place for very good reasons - Take a look at the Google play store. Be creative and be unique instead of trying to game the system with copy cat apps.

The discussion is under guideline 4.3. See, for example, https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/85411

The ASRGS have recently been updated to say this:4.2.6 Apps created from a commercialized template or app generation service will be rejected unless they are submitted directly by the provider of the app’s content. These services should not submit apps on behalf of their clients and should offer tools that let their clients create customized, innovative apps that provide unique customer experiences. Another acceptable option for template providers is to create a single binary to host all client content in an aggregated or “picker” model, for example as a restaurant finder app with separate customized entries or pages for each client restaurant, or as an event app with separate entries for each client event.And for reference:4.3 Spam Don’t create multiple Bundle IDs of the same app. If your app has different versions for specific locations, sports teams, universities, etc., consider submitting a single app and provide the variations using in-app purchase. Also avoid piling on to a category that is alr