Summary
I am seeking clarification regarding an App Store rejection under Guideline 4.2 – Design – Minimum Functionality, specifically around expectations for booking and payment flows in apps that rely on third-party, industry-standard reservation platforms.
This app is a production application for a licensed transportation (black car / limo) service. It includes multiple native iOS features implemented via Capacitor and custom Swift plugins. However, the booking and payment flow depends on a third-party transportation platform (RideBits) that does not currently support deep linking with prefilled parameters or programmatic booking APIs.
Before committing to a significant architectural change, I am hoping to understand whether Apple’s expectation under Guideline 4.2 is that all transactional booking and payment flows must be fully native and controlled by the app developer, even when third-party systems are operationally required.
⸻
App Context
The app is designed for a real transportation business and is not a content, marketing, or browsing application. It is purpose-built for trip booking, pickup coordination, and customer interaction.
The third-party platform (RideBits) handles: • Dispatch and driver assignment • Vehicle inventory and pricing rules • Payment processing • Trip lifecycle management
This platform is central to business operations and is commonly used in this industry.
⸻
Native Functionality Implemented
The app includes meaningful native iOS functionality beyond web content, including: • Native Core Location access (with permission handling) • Native reverse geocoding using CLGeocoder via a custom Swift Capacitor plugin • Native clipboard integration • Native iOS share sheet integration • Apple Maps deep linking • Custom CAPBridgeViewController with explicit plugin registration
All native plugins were verified at runtime and tested on physical devices and simulators.
⸻
Booking Flow Constraint
The third-party platform does not currently support: • Deep links with prefilled booking parameters • Passing pickup/dropoff data via URL • Native SDK embedding • APIs for programmatic booking creation
As a result, even when pickup data is collected natively, users must re-enter details within the booking flow.
⸻
App Review Outcome
Despite adding additional native functionality, the app was rejected again under Guideline 4.2, with feedback stating the experience is not sufficiently differentiated from web browsing and that features such as Core Location or sharing alone are not robust enough.
⸻
Clarification Requested
I am hoping to better understand Apple’s expectations in this scenario: 1. Is Apple’s expectation that core booking and payment flows must be fully native to satisfy Guideline 4.2, regardless of industry-standard third-party dependencies? 2. Would an app be considered acceptable if the booking UI is native, but final transaction submission occurs through a third-party system? 3. Are there known precedents for service or transportation apps using third-party booking platforms that have successfully passed review? 4. Is the issue primarily technical (missing native features), or conceptual (core value relies on an external flow)?
⸻
Purpose of This Post
Before undertaking a major rebuild of pricing, payments, and booking logic in-house, I want to ensure there is no App Store–acceptable architecture that allows: • Meaningful native functionality, and • Continued use of a third-party operational booking platform.
Any guidance or shared experience would be greatly appreciated.
